Even the NYT now worries about debt
posted at 12:14 pm on May 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Over the last four months, the federal government has conducted the most rapid expansion of deficit spending since World War II, and now even the New York Times has stopped pretending that it’s not a problem. Treasury bond yields have started upwards, forcing the US to pay more in interest service, but that’s if we can convince people to buy our debt at all anymore:
The nation’s debt clock is ticking faster than ever — and Wall Street is getting worried.
As the Obama administration racks up an unprecedented spending bill for bank bailouts, Detroit rescues, health care overhauls and stimulus plans, the bond market is starting to push up the cost of trillions of dollars in borrowing for the government.
Last week, the yield on 10-year Treasury notes rose to its highest level since November, briefly touching 3.17 percent, a sign that investors are demanding larger returns on the masses of United States debt being issued to finance an economic recovery.
Instead of solving the underlying problem, the Treasury is instead looking to find more buyers through the same kind of creative financing and derivative impulses Barack Obama decries in almost every speech:
To calm nerves and fill the deficit hole, the government is getting creative. The Treasury is ramping up its auction calendar, holding more frequent sales of government debt and selling the debt in expanded amounts. It is now holding sales of its 30-year bond each month, up from four times annually.
It is also resuscitating previously discontinued bonds, such as the seven-year note and the three-year note, to try to mop up any available money all along the yield curve. There is even talk of issuing billions of dollars of a new 50-year bond, though the idea has not won official approval. …
[T]o keep borrowing costs low, the government is trying to expand the group of firms that bid at Treasury auctions. After the demise of such names as Lehman Brothers, the number of these firms, called primary dealers, has shrunk to 16, the smallest since this elite club was formed decades ago. Now the government is in discussions with smaller firms like Nomura and MF Global to persuade them to join.
Well, that’s hardly unusual. Every Ponzi scheme has to find new suckers, after all, and this one’s no different. The escalating deficits will cost the Ponzi structure, though, in interest payments down the line. Right now, we pay about $172 billion a year to service our debt, or roughly 5% of our annual federal budget. By 2019, we’ll be paying over $800 billion a year in interest alone, or over 20% of our annual federal budget in today’s dollars, according to the CBO.
Why? This chart showing deficit projections over the next decade from the CBO and OMB show the reason investors want better return on their bonds:
And that’s if we can get them to buy it at all. Most Ponzi schemes collapse when the con can’t attract any more suckers. Don’t expect this one to be any different.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
In a related story, insider selling in the market is running at 8 times the buying, so a word to the wise about how the ‘crisis is over’.
Vashta.Nerada on May 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM
China isn’t buying it anymore as of about three days ago.
marklmail on May 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Well, Maddoff did support, Obama. Perhaps that’s where they learned to wheel, and deal?
We’re doomed as a Country, and it’s sad, that Obama wants it that way.
capejasmine on May 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Maybe it’s in your 747 circling lower Manhattan.
forest on May 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM
The problem isn’t the politicians. The problem is the people who support these plans.
JohnJ on May 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM
A year late and a trillion freaking $ too short.
DJ Rick on May 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Even better: Check the Meta tag at the top of your browser when you visit the NYT link:
“Signs That Borrow-and-Spend Policies Aren’t Sustainable”
Karl on May 4, 2009 at 12:22 PM
OK, OK, it’s becoming clear that we may have a problem. The solution, however, is also clear. We’ll increase spending. That should fix it, right Barry?
trubble on May 4, 2009 at 12:23 PM
i would never say that a republican had no hand in the current “problem”. however, it is bambi that has accelerated the debt & used the financial crisis as a springboard for all his other socialist programs.
i feel sorry for the people in the cities that can’t harvest their own food.
those 2 statements above are not non sequitors.
kelley in virginia on May 4, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I knew the day would come but do you have a link explaining that?
Yakko77 on May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM
In other news the Obama administration has hired 800 new employees to run the printing presses at the U.S. Mints./sarc
canditaylor68 on May 4, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Just what a struggling industry needs. Inflation and a spike in energy prices. That’ll do wonders for the cost of producing a newspaper.
Theworldisnotenough on May 4, 2009 at 12:26 PM
The New York Times would be screaming about the Iceberg 3 hours after the Titanic sank.
portlandon on May 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM
House. Of. Cards.
BuckeyeSam on May 4, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Click me
Theworldisnotenough on May 4, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Somewhere, Peter Schiff is smiling.
TexasJew on May 4, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Except this is the only Ponzi scheme that has the law behind it. The national government can take our income or, if we refuse, take our wealth.
WashJeff on May 4, 2009 at 12:31 PM
My biggest concern is when things start to look up because of the trillions of dollars we’ve printed and thrown out there. 99% of the public doesn’t seem to realize the long-term consequences, which, quite frankly, are terrifying.
RightWinged on May 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Heh.
Also related: final numbers coming in for tea parties. Looks like 1 million may have been reached.
forest on May 4, 2009 at 12:33 PM
The New York Times would be screaming about the Iceberg 3 hours after the Titanic sank.
portlandon on May 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM
And it would have to affect poor women and children more.
Republican Mark Kirk is the Illinois congressman in that link, and is a member of the Congressional Appropriations Committee. He is sort of the non-nutcase version of Ron Paul, and he is 100% correct.
The tsunami is on the way…
TexasJew on May 4, 2009 at 12:35 PM
We are going to find out very soon what happens when the Office of the National Debt is no longer able to sell any of our bonds. Barry will be the first president to preside over our insolvent nation. Oh, zippy…
Wyznowski on May 4, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Limbaugh just played a Warren Buffett audio clip of “the great sage” saying the Obama Chrysler bondholder cramdown would do damage to lending in America, as secured lenders would be vulnerable to Washington’s political whims. Buffett said we need lenders -bond buyers in this case- to feel comfortable with putting capital out there.
It’s a great clip, but I can’t find it on google/YouTube.
Anybody?
toliver on May 4, 2009 at 12:36 PM
$20 trillion in dollar-denominated debt is nothing a bit of Weimar-style hyperinflation can’t fix.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 12:36 PM
yeah but, 150,000 more jobs were either created or saved today. So no worries.
kirkill on May 4, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Don’t worry… be happy!
littleguy on May 4, 2009 at 12:40 PM
My biggest concern is when things start to look up because of the trillions of dollars we’ve printed and thrown out there. 99% of the public doesn’t seem to realize the long-term consequences, which, quite frankly, are terrifying.
RightWinged on May 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM
I’ll bet my 100 trillion dollar Zimbabwe bill that you’re right.
The dummies have even said, ‘well, if we have (hyper)inflation, my social security will be secure’.
No one, least of all the idiot in the oval office, realizes that the country is as pathetically broke and bankrupt as one of their subprime voters.
TexasJew on May 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Obama is engaging the Enron business model. It will run out of success and crash.
seven on May 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Schakowski calls NYT “despicable”?
I guess Jan Schakowski would call the NYT a “despicable” “group of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel,” in “an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs,” Schakowsky said in a statement. “Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/16/schakowsky-tea-parties-despicable/
Given the NYT’s stance on the Globe bankruptcy, it figures. ; ))
Angry Dumbo on May 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Thanks for that info. The Dems marginalization/persecution of the Tea Parties is backfiring on them. Now the NYT is getting on the deficits are bad bandwagon. I predict those numbers will climb exponentially in July. =)
canditaylor68 on May 4, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Deficits are only bad if Republicans make them.
TexasJew on May 4, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Suggestions for the graph.
Please change the words “Actual” and Projected” to “Bush” and Obama”.
Alternate is “Capitalism” and “Socialism”
faraway on May 4, 2009 at 12:44 PM
That’s completely unsustainable. The country is proper f*cked.
BadgerHawk on May 4, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Would the 50-yr bond be considered a junk bond?
Neo-con Artist on May 4, 2009 at 12:45 PM
On a related note, Michigan lawywers are outraged that Chrysler filed for bankruptcy in New York. They were counting on all those litigation dollars to be spent in Detroit. Chrysler is bankrupt no matter what but the Obama supporters are now arguing over who gets first dibs on the carrion.
highhopes on May 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM
A Ron Paul-esqe guy who isn’t a bat short in the belltower?
Naaa.. I will just take it as this guy is more libertarian. I won’t put people in the Ron Paul “void”.
upinak on May 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM
I couldn’t have said that any better than you did.
canditaylor68 on May 4, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Unfortunately it is almost at the end now.
I wonder who will commit suicide.. as it seems to be the political out for many.
upinak on May 4, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Considering your grandkids and great grandkids are already living government-mandated lifestyle they can’t support with what they can expect to make in their lifetimes, I’d say yes.
highhopes on May 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM
If the Liberals are spending more than World War 2,
then,where is the war,and who are they fighting!
And,hasn’t the Left already spent a gazillion dollars
in social programs for the last sixty years!
canopfor on May 4, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Maybe Obama can get the NYT & The Boston Globe to start printing money?
Their certainly won’t need the printing presses much longer to print the “news”.
izoneguy on May 4, 2009 at 12:50 PM
The good news is this:
When Obama’s star implodes, the Dems hopes fade with it.
faraway on May 4, 2009 at 12:51 PM
We need more fiscal conservatives in the Senate who are willing to filibuster to achieve fiscal sanity.
The 2010 Senate elections are very important.
Loxodonta on May 4, 2009 at 12:51 PM
“…the federal government has conducted the most rapid expansion of deficit spending since World War II…”
How do you come to this conclusion? It seems like the most rapid expansion of deficit spending in the history of the world, not just since WWII.
Kevin M on May 4, 2009 at 12:51 PM
This is what happens when an economically illiterate left-wing radical with a third-world mentality is elected president.
Thanks, Obamabots. Thanks a lot./
AZCoyote on May 4, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Yes and now the kids & grandkids are on the government dole. Gotta keep buying those votes, they certainly have not earned them.
izoneguy on May 4, 2009 at 12:52 PM
The only bond I would buy/fund is for the ONE after his arraignment.
WashJeff on May 4, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Just wait until we see the total amount of the next three federal budgets that is going to interest payments. The Democrats made a big deal out of this when Bill Clinton presided over shrinking deficits and shrinking interest payments. And it is a big deal – every dollar the government has to pay in interest is a dollar it cannot spend on defense or Medicare or anything else we want. And the government cannot control or predict this number, it depends on the interest rates investors demand, and that is bound to increase over time.
The other really bad news here is that mortgage rates key off the 10-year Treasury bill rate. They have been at historic lows for a few months, which has fed a minor refinancing boom, creating jobs for mortgage lenders and putting cash in homeowners’ pockets. A pickup in first-time homebuying has also helped stabilize the housing market. Another runup in interest rates will tank the housing market all over again.
You would think there would be at least one economist in Washington with some balls who could tell this to the White House.
rockmom on May 4, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Since this astonishingly incompetent Administration has their heads stuck so far up their ‘sixth point of contact’ they have no clue as to what’s happening.
That is all except Hussein al-Chicago whose head is in the clouds thanks to his megalomania.
SeniorD on May 4, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Btw,wheres Hopey’s 1,000,000-to-5,000,000 new jobs
since the Liberals are in na na Land,and everything
is tickity-boo in the Liberal World!!(Sarc).
canopfor on May 4, 2009 at 12:54 PM
The picture associated with this story on the Hotair homepage always cracks me up.
jdflorida on May 4, 2009 at 12:55 PM
So George Bush blindly invading Iraq has cost us about a trillion dollars. Did one conservative ever cry about the money we borrowed to finance the war? Oh thats right, deficits don’t matter under a republican president, they only matter under a Democratic president. Did conservatives cry when Bush borrowed money to give his rich friends tax cuts. Oh I guess that deficit is different when a republican president does it. When a country is facing a potential depression, a stimulus is needed. Thats what Obama did, he didn’t run up the debt invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. He didn’t give millionaires tax cuts while these millionaires shipped jobs overseas. Thats why Obama got elected and why the gop got decimated in the last 2 elections. Eventually taxes will have to raised and spending cut to get the deficit under control. But with a potential depression, spending by the government had to be done. If the gop thinks their way of governing is more effective, I’m sure they will whip the Dems in the 2010 midterms. Think thats gonna happen? I bet the gop loses 2 senate seats and maybe gains less than 5 house seats. Obama will crush whatever sacrificial lamb the gop sends to slaughter in 2012. We will have Universal Health care by that time and our troops out of Iraq. Green energy will be taking off and the Arabs will be left with a bunch of unsold oil. But I’m sure the rightwing noise machine will still be “creating” non stories to attack Democrats. Its like a drug addiction for the neo cons. Eventually the angry rightwing fringe will only be a sad footnote in American History. In the meantime its cheap entertainment to watch them flail like a beached whale.
athensboy on May 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM
And, very sad. Hell, why not offer a 75-yr and 100 yr bond, let’s make certain no generation escapes this…
You know, the numbers that are getting thrown around these days are so ridiculous that one wonders if anyone in this administration grasps that concept of 1,000,000,000,000…
Neo-con Artist on May 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM
This chart was made before we found out that the economy shrank 6.1% in the first quarter.
Real deficits are even higher, and growing even faster.
MarkTheGreat on May 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Here’s what I don’t get: Either the retards in charge don’t see what even a dullard like me can figure out; that the so-called “stimulus” from the spending is, almost by definition, going to fall far short of generating the kind of marginal tax revenues required to pay the bill, or they can see it, and the resulting financial and economic collapse of our country is the intended result.
It’s like one of those optical illusions: it alternates between a picture of a naif and a picture of the devil.
mr.blacksheep on May 4, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Not only that but social security (per an article I saw someplace about a month ago) is now starting to pay out more than it takes in. For some time now social security surpluses have been used as an offset to reduce the deficit numbers and it looks like that will be no more.
MB4 on May 4, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Yes and now…..
izoneguy on May 4,2009 at 12:52PM.
izoneguy:
The fighting the Liberals are doing,are the ‘Right’!
And,I agree with you,the Stimulus bailouts are Liberal
I.O.U’s they had to payout,and they have bought another
generation of Liberal Voters!!:)
canopfor on May 4, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Thanks for the link.
In response to the link,
OH CRUD!!!!!
Looks like Ed was right about the suckers getting wise to the Ponzi scheme.
While he make take a certain amount of pride in predicting this I get the feeling it brings him no joy. It hurts his country and his wallet too though he’s likely invested in ways to lessen the blow but I imagine he’s still being impacted by this disaster in the making.
Yakko77 on May 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Not a problem, rockmom. Obama will just order the banks to provide low interest-rate mortgage loans to all applicants (providing they have the right skin color and a suitably low credit score), regardless of where the 10-year T-bill rate is. If the banks balk, he’ll threaten to use the WH press corp to destroy them — just like he did to Chrysler’s secured bondholders.
It’s fun being a third-world thug dictator with a first-world economy at your disposal, isn’t it Barry?
AZCoyote on May 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM
So what? Do you expect everyone to say “Oh, yeah, that’s right. Ok, deficits don’t matter.” and the laws of physics are thereby nullified? Or do you agree that this reckless spending is grossly irresponsible and there’s lots of blame to go around?
If it’s the first, you’re a moron. If it’s the second, then I’ll assume you attended a Tea Party?
mr.blacksheep on May 4, 2009 at 1:01 PM
And withdrawing from Iraq and leaving it in the control of AQI wouldn’t have cost this nation even more blood and treasure in the long run than by staying and making Iraq the fairly stable and functional country it is today how exactly?
Yakko77 on May 4, 2009 at 1:03 PM
1) The Iraq war spending occurred over 6 years.
2) Barry spent his trillion in one year.
3) The Iraq war has made the US safer.
4) Barry’s spending benefited a few of his donors, at the expense of the rest of us.
MarkTheGreat on May 4, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Have we ever had a captions contest for the picture at the top of this thread.
My entery:
I think I see a clue out there.
MarkTheGreat on May 4, 2009 at 1:06 PM
So George Bush blindly invading Iraq…..
athensboy on May 4,2009 at 12:56PM.
athensboy:
Tell me,I know the Liberal Moonbats are dying to get
the Talk’n Point Campaign on the go,to brainwash the
already Kool-Aid sip’n Lefty voters that its not Janet
Reno,who forced banks to write off home loans,and caused
the economy to go south,
but the cost of the Iraq War did it!!
canopfor on May 4, 2009 at 1:07 PM
ophelia on May 4, 2009 at 1:07 PM
He said, riding in on his unicorn.
scalleywag on May 4, 2009 at 1:07 PM
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/05/02/missing-condi/
reshas1 on May 4, 2009 at 1:08 PM
There is a good chance that Interest Rates will not go up signficantly, because this is a Global market, not a National only market.
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2009/05/do-deficits-cause-higher-interest-rates-you-decide.html#comments
jp on May 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Good point but don’t bother reasoning with a brainwashed idiot. People like him put America in this mess to begin with.
ophelia on May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM
The credit crisis hits the Fed.
Serious question: what will the Gov’t do if no-one buys the bonds? Are they forced to actually cut back on expenditures to the amount on hand, or do they have some other tricks available? I’d love for the answer to be (a), but I’m guessing there’s a (b).
TexasDan on May 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Yes I see your point. Heh 1 Trillion whole dollars on a 7 yr war that kept the idiots busy in thier own backyards and kept them out of ours versus Trillions of whole dollars spent in less than 3 months on payback for those special special groups that got Obama elected. We dont apologize for the Iraq war. We dont apologize for Bush. He did what he did,its done now. Obama wont be in power for long. All is fair in love and war and this is another reason why conservatives should never ever compromise their values,become demlites, or kiss BO’s butt. There is a rising tide coming at BO, I hope he stays ignorant long enough not to see it when it hits him. I pray we can put this country back together. BO is nothing but a failure.//
canditaylor68 on May 4, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Blindly? Your fiscally irresponsible warmongering democrat friends not only supported, but pushed Bush (who has never been too smart, remember) into invading Iraq.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
MB4 on May 4, 2009 at 1:13 PM
forest, thanks for mentioning that. I’ve been keeping an eye on that count, too. The lefties have it in their heads that there were no more than 250,000, and as we know, that was a very conservative initial estimate.
juliesa on May 4, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I’m dumb as a rock when it comes to economics but common sense tells me this: If I’ve overspent tremendously over the past couple of years and find myself way over my head and drowning in debt, my way to a balanced budget is not to borrow and spend an amount triple or quadruple what I borrowed and spent to get me into a deficit in the first place. Right? How could anyone think that would work?
scalleywag on May 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM
They’re worried about their own debt too.
China canceling our credit card??
JiangxiDad on May 4, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Oh the cabal will get its money. Don’t worry about that.
They have us to squeeze like lemons.
And of course, we’re happy to do it.
After all, Obama looks great with his shirt off.
notagool on May 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Yesterday, President Obama presented his “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was neither new, nor a strategy. Behind all the rhetoric, he just said, I’m sending more troops and more money.”
Barack Obama? I heard Lyndon Johnson. The only LBJ touch that BHO lacked was the word “escalation.”
Obama’s approach just stinks of Vietnam.
Hey, hey, ho, ho . . . BHO. . . Why don’t your supporters go?
- Ralph Peters
MB4 on May 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Still can’t get that paragraph thingy working for ya I see.
Knucklehead on May 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Because a living God in the White House says he’ll make it work despite the ass backward math in a eloquent speech.
Yakko77 on May 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Total world bond and credit markets are growing faster than our National Debt. This is causing interest rates to decline even as deficits increase, so far anyway.
jp on May 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM
“People” don’t have any say over what this government is doing. Not until 2010 and the politicians know it!
They have a few more months before they start being “appalled” and find a way to blame Bush… they will get the votes to be re-elected then have another year or so to keep this up. By then the country will be so far down the Communist/Totalitarian path they figure they can stay in power forever.
petunia on May 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM
What if they gave
a warbond auction and nobody came?rockhead on May 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Yea, I guess it’s as simple as that.
I’m surprised anyone would lend money to a country with as big a deficit as we have. Someday I guess we’ll just be owned by the Chinese and we won’t have to worry about being partisanship anymore.
scalleywag on May 4, 2009 at 1:34 PM
MB4 on May 4, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Great series of quotes… you should post those daily over at the liberal sites… just to make sure they have some perspective on the coming witch trials.
petunia on May 4, 2009 at 1:35 PM
that’s better
scalleywag on May 4, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Open Question:
Now that we are talking about debt, I think it is important that we ask a question as to what would be the conservative solution to rebuilding our infrastructure.
As you know, Eisenhower built our roads and bridges in the 1950’s which connected various parts of America. Obviously this was a massive investment in public works which benefits us every day in more ways than we know. We also have massive investments in Public Rail as well as electrical grids. These investments are eroding everyday and must be fixed to move forward. Some of the infrastructure is owned by the states while the rest is owned by the Federal Government.
My question is what is the conservative solution for fixing these investments in a timely fashion while making sure that we do not increase the debt?
I have been searching for the conservative answer to this but could not find any off of the top of my head. Obviously, the left has certain viewpoints on this but I am here for your take.
ckoeber on May 4, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Because a living God in the White House says he’ll make it work despite the ass backward math in a eloquent speech.
Yakko77 on May 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM
And Ogabe’s faithful, glaze-eyed followers will continue to believe him, because they are as dumb as he is.
Unless the man is driven from office, it may really be time to start preparing for the collapse.
Bishop on May 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM
You knew that would have to be the reason we bought $500bln of our own debt in Feb/March. Talk about your creative accounting. Wasn’t that just part of the problem with Enron, Madoff, etc?
bikermailman on May 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I think you really need this.
Mr. D on May 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Voting is not just a right…it’s also a responsibility. The problem is with the uninformed, or mentally challenged, voters who keep electing the same crooks time-after-time.
It won’t be long until the chosen one will understand, what most of us already know, is that there’s a limited supply of money and especially other people’s money.
orlandocajun on May 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM
My question is what is the conservative solution for fixing these investments in a timely fashion while making sure that we do not increase the debt?
I have been searching for the conservative answer to this but could not find any off of the top of my head. Obviously, the left has certain viewpoints on this but I am here for your take.
ckoeber on May 4, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Had the government stayed out of the housing markets, and out of the private sector, I think these wrongs in the economy would have been righted, or at least started to, by now.
I have no doubts, that a good portion of this mess, was planned.
capejasmine on May 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Good point. If there is a solution I haven’t heard it.
scalleywag on May 4, 2009 at 1:41 PM
MB4 on May 4, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I believe it said Fiscal 2010, at the end of this year. When the ‘surplus’ was supposed to last til 2017.
bikermailman on May 4, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Is that where the “150,000 new jobs” went, towards fixing the infrastructure?
scalleywag on May 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM
This looks like the beginnings of a clue bird landing on your shoulder, though I doubt it.
Did you read what Ed wrote here?:
That’s interest alone, it doesn’t account for entitlement or discretionary spending on top of it.
Do you really believe that the “top 5 percent” is going to pay for all of this? How?
Otis B on May 4, 2009 at 1:45 PM
ckoeber,
If Obama weren’t wasting so much money, perhaps there would be a little left over to fix the roads.
Any spending on railroads would be a complete waste.
MarkTheGreat on May 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM
OK, but then the answer would be a public works type of legislation?
ckoeber on May 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM
At least getalife was an efficient idiot. You waste much more typing effort to achieve even less.
DarkCurrent on May 4, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Certainly not all of it, but some did go to fixing roads and bridges.
But my focus is what is the conservative solution?
ckoeber on May 4, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »