Nov. 1, 2008
National Debt Soars $500B In Under A Month
Financial Bailout Plan The Primary Culprit In Record-Setting Debt Accumulation
-
Photo
(AP)
-
Interactive
Eye On The Economy
In-depth features on U.S. markets, taxes, employment and the Federal Reserve.
-
Interactive
Bush Presidency
The president's agenda, plus facts, figures, major events and key personalities.
It’s the surge you won’t hear anyone boast about.
Never before in U.S. history has the national debt increased as much and as rapidly as it has over the past month.
Since September 30, the day the national debt hit the $10-trillion mark for the first time, the government has run up over $500 billion in new debt.
That’s more than the federal deficit for the entire 2008 fiscal year, which ended September 30. And it’s the most rapid increase in the national debt ever: over half a trillion dollars in less than a month - 23 days to be exact.
The government’s latest calculation of the national debt stands at $10,530,893,033,778.21 - that’s $10.5-trillion for short. It took less than four months for it to rocket to that level from $9.5 trillion on July 21.
Less than four months! To put it in perspective, consider this: it took the U.S. government over four decades, from 1940 to 1982, to run up its first trillion dollars of debt.
The second and third trillions were racked up much more quickly - each in just four years. And it only took from 1990 to 1992 for the national debt to hit $4 trillion.
On the day President Bush was sworn in, the debt stood at $5.7 trillion. Less than eight years later, the it’s within days of having swelled $5 trillion dollars on his watch - an embarrassing milestone for a president who considers himself a conservative and an advocate of fiscal discipline.
What’s to blame for the most recent surge in the debt? Above all else, it’s the federal government's response to the financial crisis.
“It’s the Supplementary Financing Program being run by Treasury to provide cash for the Federal Reserve,” says Corrine Hirsh, spokeswoman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
By that, she means the billions of dollars disbursed by the Fed to keep the financial markets at home and abroad from collapsing. It includes the $124 billion used to keep insurance industry giant American International Group from going bust.
And this week, the Treasury Department started to spend the $700 billion dollars in the congressionally authorized bailout program, so the national debt can be expected to soar even more rapidly in the coming months.
But on January 20, it becomes another president’s problem. And unless he slashes federal spending or enacts major tax hikes, the ballooning deficit and debt leave no money for any of the big ticket programs he's promised to deliver.
Instead, the 44th president will have to deal with the problem of how to pay the interest on the expanding debt. If past practice holds, it’s a good bet the government will just borrow the money.
By Mark Knoller
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 116 CommentsCompared to this, a BJ doesn''t seem so bad.
and wait..
and wait...
and wait....
(sucker... your kids are now slaves).
There''s something for your legacy, you moron! Obama can''t thank you enough!
We can forget all about the tax cuts, new programs, whatever else was promised by either candidate. When he takes office on 1/20/2009, he will have time only for all of this financial mess. He will be working six days a week (maybe seven) for very long hours as will people in his administration.
As to borrowing money - sooner or late the Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Saudis, etc. will want at least some of their money paid back before they lend us more. What are the odds of that happening?
Obama is endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats whereas McCain has alienated prominent members of both parties. The new President will need physical and mental endurance. Obama is healthy, young and knowledable. McCain has had two operations for cancer and a 3rd minor one; he is old and worn out and has stated in public that economics is not his strong suit.
I vote Obama.
Hey d i p s h i t,
The Clinton surplus wa due to sound financial management during tenure. The Reagan deficit did not go away. We were simply in a position to finally pay down the national debt. Idiot Bu$h has a 1/2 trillion in red ink *this week alone*.
Thank the repubothugs when the economy finally collapses all together.
Oh,and that ''gene pool thingy''.......LOOK INTO THE MIRROR,CLETUS!!!!!!!!!
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The deficit when Bush too office did not exist. We had a 122.7 billion dollar surplus.
Why do you print lies...Oh yeah!!!! The Gene pool thingy.
Posted by obiden08 at 06:53 AM
Republicans are lying SCUM. They always deflect blame to the ''other guy''......
1996. Democratic Senators appeased by weak-kneed Americans.
1997. Chopped down again.
1998. More appeasement.
2008. Democratic president. Republican Congress. Balanced Budget Amendment. Or more appeasement.
1996. Democratic Senators appeased by weak-kneed Americans.
1997. Chopped down again.
1998. More appeasement.
2008. Democratic president. Republican Congress. Balanced Budget Amendment. Or more appeasement.
Posted by AtheismWins at 08:10 AM : Nov 01, 2008
----
Didn''t Clinton respect atheists? Bush didn''t... nor do I blame him.
Incidentally, would you share some links to proof of those statistics?
Incidentally, would you share some links to proof of those statistics?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Hypnotoad72 at 08:22 AM : Nov 01, 2008
------------
No one has ever told me that I can''t be an atheist. We do have to worry about discrimination. But there is an immense freedom to being an atheist.
Here''s the 1997 vote link. If one of these Senators had voted yes, the Balanced Budget Amendment would have passed, and gone to the states for ratification:
Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Bumpers (D-AR) Byrd (D-WV) Conrad (D-ND) Daschle (D-SD)Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Ford (D-KY) Glenn (D-OH)Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerrey (D-NE) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Mikulski (D-MD) Moynihan (D-NY)Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Torricelli (D-NJ) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00024
Posted by menmotoscutr at 08:23 AM : Nov 01, 2008
God where do people like this come from!? This joke is willing to sell out our future, to try, YET AGAIN, to make Trickle Down work in the face of complete and total failure. To do this he uses the worst of our past, fear and McCarthyism, to do so. How much lower will the stoop? How far into the cesspool of hate and bigotry will they sink? Stay tuned!
1996. Democratic Senators appeased by weak-kneed Americans.
1997. Chopped down again.
1998. More appeasement.
2008. Democratic president. Republican Congress. Balanced Budget Amendment. Or more appeasement.
Posted by AtheismWins at 08:10 AM : Nov 01, 2008
Hey Sparky why didn''t you get past the 6th grade? LOL It''s embarrassing knowing there are people out there THIS uneducated... Now follow along and I''ll try to use SMALL Words here. The "Balanced Budget Amendment" was a TRICK Sparky and the Republican''s of 2000 show you that beyond any doubt. THEY, the Fascist Republican''s had complete control of ALL branches and they never even RAISED the Balanced Budget Garbage. Know why? Because they were in the PROCESS of trashing the Balanced Budget and Surplus LEFT for them!! Good grief, go back to school... get an education!! YOU are embarrassing!!
FOUR More Years of Republican Prosperity!!
More Huge Tax Cuts for the Super Rich!!
More Massive Spending on Needless Wars to help our Economy!!
Privatize Social Security!
AND Get a Hocky Mom Vice President - just think, someone just like your next door neighbor could get to be President. WOW!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by irmcvet97 at 08:39 AM : Nov 01, 2008
--------------
Well, that''s a good point. Do we still have Americans out there who blindly trust one political party or the other?
Bush got elected and the Republican monopoly forgot all about the Balanced Budget Amendment.
So we put Democrats in the White House until Republicans get a Balanced Budget Amendment through Congress.
America don''t want what a Democratic monopoly got.
If Nancy Pelosi proposes a Balanced Budget Amendment tomorrow, I will change my tune. And barnyard animals will be jetting past my window.
Posted by AtheismWins at 08:49 AM : Nov 01, 2008
----
Good Lord. Many posts on many forums show how uneducated people are, which only fuels the stereotypes about our country and, sadly, adds weight to those that support offshoring. Which in turn halts incentives (why study for a field going offshore and wasting that money), and the vicious circle continues.
But I digress.
You mean "doesn''t". (the switching of quotes coming from CBS''s filtering system.)
And most atheists prefer the Democrats anyway. You''re an interesting character, though I can''t say I''m not -- after all, the world is made up of all types.
-------
Riiiight.
Of course you remain silent about McCain and Bush supporting HUGE Deficits.
Has "trickle down economics" now been PROVEN to be a failure to you, even after the liberals saw it as epic failure in the 80''s?
Are you still crying about "paygo" and "tax and spend" as being the WRONG way to balance our budget?
Give me ANYTHING but the anti-American "conservatism" mantra. Hell, at this point it appears as though third world African countries are run better than how the conservatives ran America.
Here''''s the 1997 vote link. If one of these Senators had voted yes, the Balanced Budget Amendment would have passed, and gone to the states for ratification:
Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Bumpers (D-AR) Byrd (D-WV) Conrad (D-ND) Daschle (D-SD)Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Ford (D-KY) Glenn (D-OH)Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerrey (D-NE) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Mikulski (D-MD) Moynihan (D-NY)Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Torricelli (D-NJ) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)
http://www.senate.gov/legislat
ive/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_c
fm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00024
Posted by AtheismWins at 08:33 AM : Nov 01, 2008
---
A lot of Republicans voted "Yea" on it too. Including McCain... and Biden.
Thank you for the link. I am disgusted by the Democrats who voted "Nay" - I recognize them all, especially Reid, Byrd, KERRY, WELLSTONE, and Boxer, and there is nary a Republican in that lot either.
And most atheists prefer the Democrats anyway. You''''re an interesting character, though I can''''t say I''''m not -- after all, the world is made up of all types.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Hypnotoad72 at 08:54 AM : Nov 01, 2008
------------
No, that was intentional slang.
Atheists can have a bit of a minority complex. No one has ever told me that I can''t be an atheist. So I move on to other issues.
In real life, I am careful about who I tell. Religion can be an intensely personal issue.
-------
Riiiight.
Of course you remain silent about McCain and Bush supporting HUGE Deficits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by NoRINOs1 at 08:54 AM : Nov 01, 2008
-----------
I am proud to say that I never voted for Bush. I want a Balanced Budget Amendment. And I don''t care how we get there.
Send a message to the Republicans: No White House until you get a Balanced Budget Amendment through Congress.
Send a message to the Democrats: No Congress until a Balanced Budget Amendment is passed.
A monopoly of either party invites trouble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Hacker11001 at 09:13 AM : Nov 01, 2008
-----------
I''ve thought about this a lot. Including "Is there an easy way out of this?"
Higher taxes are the most likely consequence. This can have a nasty side effect such as increased unemployment.
An increased retirement age is also possible. This could also increase unemployment.
It''s especially sad in this regard: Government could probably cut spending 20% across the board, and no one would notice. We may even be relieved that their power to meddle had been reduced.
Right now, government is out of control and worrisome. We are on Bankruptcy Street. But it is hard to say when the tax increase will come. Or the retirement age will be raised.
The US dollar has already lost its status as the world''''s reserve currency.....
Posted by Hacker11001 at 09:23 AM : Nov 01,
So what will take its place? Actually the US will simply no longer control 50% of the total world wealth. It will fall back to owning only 30% of the worlds wealth. Europe is natural resource poor, Russia is oil and vodka rich (two industries) and Japan has lost its worker ethic. So only India and China remain as viable competitors with impossibly cheap labor. They will absorb 20% of the US wealth loss and an even higher percent of Europe''s wealth but the US will remain for many years to come, a viable industrial and service provider to the world as well as a partner in the global economy......unless obama is elected
Posted by AtheismWins
Now here is an *** that has never been in a foxhole!
Posted by AtheismWins
Now here is an *** that has never been in a foxhole!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by mroutside12 at 09:51 AM : Nov 01, 2008
-------------
Well, that would be true.
I find that I do have a "spiritual" side despite my lack of belief.
I just channel that into improving this world (or so I like to think!) instead of worshipping a deity : )
Posted by Hacker11001 at 09:16 AM : Nov 01, 2008
We are apparently now in the final countdown towards the greatest economic meltdown in history. Yet few appear to be aware of what lies ahead. We are about to witness the end of the America that we were blessed with, and enter a worldwide age of tribulation and chaos that no one has experienced in living memory.
Posted by Hacker11001 at 09:16 AM : Nov 01, 2008
No, we are just going to tell the world that we have saved their butts from the Kaizer, from Hitler, China from from Tojo, Europe from the USSR, South Korea from North Korea, The middle East from Saddam Hussein, and the cost of those wars in American money and lives just about equals the national debt. Accordingly the national debt is hereby cancelled.
Next?
Well then at least you are honest and I appologize for my insensitivity. My exposure to so many liberal democrats on this site sometimes causes me to be insensitive to people such as yourself.
PAX
Without question, the Barack Obama infomercial served as a very slick and powerful recitation of the biggest promises he''s made as a presidential candidate. But the very bigness of his ideas is the problem: he seems blind to the concept his numbers don''t add up.
Let''s start with his highly suspect, and widely discredited, claim that he can find federal "spending cuts beyond the costs" of his promises. Very few independent economists believe he has identified the savings needed to offset his remarkable list of tax credits, tax cuts and spending pledges.
Fact: Even if you believe Obama intends to fix health care, most independent analysts say the cost is massive - $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to the highly respected Lewin Group. When the new Congress wakes up next year to a $1 trillion deficit, and answers the overwhelming new demands for another stimulus package, will the leadership really bite on a health care reform package that digs the deficit hole so much deeper?
And that''s just the beginning of what Obama would spend.
See the remainder in my next post and note this is not from Fox News, or some raving so called racist, biggot, war monger.
Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign''s own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.
Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.
Fact: Obama''s claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years - a fact Obama neatly glosses over.
Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he''s addressing.
Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it''s for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by zaniacloclo at 09:59 AM : Nov 01, 2008
------------
That''s a really hard thing to do, especially for a 72-76 year old!
Spending money reaps short term political benefits.
We need a law against the raiding of Americans wallets. We need a Balanced Budget Amendment.
I fear that you are correct about the consequences of higher taxes, though. But we can''t borrow forever.
Who can say when? But I think higher taxes will be the first consequence of our reckless spending.
Fact: The tax cuts he promises, which are mostly refundable tax credits (code for cash back), will cost $60 billion just in year one, according the National Taxpayers Union, though the Obama campaign''s own estimates in July put that figure at $130 billion.
Fact: His new promise to give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each new job created will cost $40 billion. But economists say this credit is far more likely to benefit companies already planning to expand and will likely not be enough to help companies create new jobs or forestall layoffs.
Fact: Obama''s claim he will lower health care premiums by $2,500 is: 1.) guesswork, which is 2.) based on health care savings that might, in a perfect world, happen over 10 years - a fact Obama neatly glosses over.
Fact: Obama, when referring to savings he can make by leaving Iraq ($90 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates), has spent these savings several times over, across several different promises depending on the crowd he''s addressing.
Most of the time he spends the Iraq savings in the context of the roads he wants to build; sometimes it''s for the teachers he wants to hire. Tonight, he riffed rhetorically on the savings, asking how many scholarships could be funded, or how many schools could be built. In the end though, presuming he really saves $90 billion, he can only spend it once.
Sorry for the rant... Feeling kinda bad about everything today. I just hope corporate America sees the light and realizes they need to do something.
Posted by azure11 at 10:20 AM : Nov 01, 2008
Obama can change all this. He is going to raise corporate taxes as an incentive for corporations to keep jobs here. Tell your worried and unemployed friends to get out the vote for McCain.
Congratulations! Delusions of Stupidity, and rants of a deranged women. Tell us more, we are facinated by a live psychotic spewing nonsense. Have you tried dream analysis?
Posted by azure11 at 10:28 AM : Nov 01, 2008
In that case, go where the jobs go and get one!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MissWasilla at 10:19 AM : Nov 01, 2008
------------
Hard core liberals may end up talking to each other, on the outside of power looking in.
Democratic Senators are violently opposed to a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Rising debt has unpleasant consquences. I''ll agree that a Republican monopoly was bad. And I''ll proudly say that I never voted for Bush.
But trusting a Democratic monopoly to show fiscal discipline? Isn''t that like trusting the fox with the hen house?
And of course this all happened because of the policies of the past 8 years, which have not been all that different than the policies of the last 40. So what is your point. You do have a point do you not. Take off your hat and you can scratch it.
Posted by MissWasilla
You forgot the biggest white house room of all.. The Bill Clintons secret condom conservatory.
Wow. Extremely well said, esp. about Roosevelt. Keep posting, maybe even the brain-dead Cons will get it.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 116 Comments