I cited total debt which includes private. The figure for this from one source is 350% of GDP the highest since 290% in 1929. The figure I have is 53 trillion. National Debt according to Wikipedia is around 60% of GDP.
Once again Chuckles shoots himself in the foot by not reading. The claim by Rick was that national debt increased by 6 T during the Bush term. The figures I have are 5.6 - 9.815 plus presumably the .7 sought which gives around 5 trillion. The 10 trillion in a later post was in relation to if that were a band aid figure. One was presumably a total the other an increase, so there is no reason for them to be the same.
See my later post - Exaggerating is exaggerating. The 9.8 is the current figure and includes ALL money, including, most likely the bailout money as the number jumps the day it was announced and which is dishonest to include because it's not all debt; it includes real assets and a 11 % ROI. Nice
Nice try tho.
Edit:
Added numbers to show the AIG loan:
09/18/2008 5,492,459,419,394.83 4,172,172,383,864.24 9,664,631,803,259.07
09/19/2008 5,552,620,101,517.17 4,174,389,518,377.17 9,727,009,619,894.34
backs up my 'the bail out money is already factored in' claim.
Last edited by chucklesR : 09-22-2008 at 10:11 PM.
Here's a Bloomburg article that Rick has studiously avoided mentioning, maybe because it goes against everything he's said and continues to say. Bloomberg.com: Opinion
Rick's acrimony is hard to understand since I'm the one who pointed him towards that truck driving school. And freight rates are up!
Before D.C. Gets Our Money, It Owes Us Some Answers [Newt Gingrich]
Watching Washington rush to throw taxpayer money at Wall Street has been sobering and a little frightening.
We are being told Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a plan which will shift $700 billion in obligations from private companies to the taxpayer.
We are being warned that this $700 billion bailout is the only answer to a crisis.
We are being reassured that we can trust Secretary Paulson "because he knows what he is doing".
Congress had better ask a lot of questions before it shifts this much burden to the taxpayer and shifts this much power to a Washington bureaucracy.
Imagine that the political balance of power in Washington were different.
If this were a Democratic administration the Republicans in the House and Senate would be demanding answers and would be organizing for a “no” vote.
If a Democratic administration were proposing this plan, Republicans would realize that having Connecticut Democratic senator Chris Dodd (the largest recipient of political funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) as chairman of the Banking Committee guarantees that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Paulson plan that will emerge will be much worse as legislation than it started out as the Paulson proposal.
If this were a Democratic proposal, Republicans would remember that the Democrats wrote a grotesque housing bailout bill this summer that paid off their left-wing allies with taxpayer money, which despite its price tag of $300 billion has apparently failed as of last week, and could expect even more damage in this bill.
But because this gigantic power shift to Washington and this avalanche of taxpayer money is being proposed by a Republican administration, the normal conservative voices have been silent or confused.
It’s time to end the silence and clear up the confusion.
Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer.
Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law.
Congress has an obligation to perform oversight.
Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly, precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess.
There are four major questions that have to be answered before Congress adopts a new $700 billion burden for the American taxpayer. On each of these questions, I believe Congress’s answer will be “no” if it slows down long enough to examine the facts.
Question One: Is the current financial crisis the only crisis affecting the economy?
Answer: There are actually multiple crises hurting the economy.
There is an immediate crisis of liquidity on Wall Street.
There is a longer time crisis of a bad energy policy transferring $700 billion a year to foreign countries (so foreign sovereign capital funds are now using our energy payments to buy our companies).
There is a longer term crisis of Sarbanes-Oxley (the last "crisis"-inspired congressional disaster) crippling entrepreneurial start ups, driving public companies private, driving smart business people off public boards, and driving offerings from New York to London.
There is a long term crisis of a high corporate tax rate driving business out of the United States.
No solution to the immediate liquidity crisis should further cripple the American economy for the long run. Instead, the liquidity solution should be designed to strengthen the economy for competition in the world market.
Question Two: Is a big bureaucracy solution the only answer?
Answer: There is a non-bureaucratic solution that would stop the liquidity crisis almost overnight and do it using private capital rather than taxpayer money.
Four reform steps will have capital flowing with no government bureaucracy and no taxpayer burden.
First, suspend the mark-to-market rule which is insanely driving companies to unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks (an arbitrary number and a warning of the rule by bureaucrats which is coming under the Paulson plan), the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market.
Second, repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy Mac. It failed with Fannie Mae. It failed with Bear Stearns. It failed with Lehman Brothers. It failed with AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. I spent three days this week in Silicon Valley. Everyone agreed Sarbanes-Oxley was crippling the economy. One firm told me they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. Its Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.
Third, match our competitors in China and Singapore by going to a zero capital gains tax. Private capital will flood into Wall Street with zero capital gains and it will come at no cost to the taxpayer. Even if you believe in a static analytical model in which lower capital gains taxes mean lower revenues for the Treasury, a zero capital gains tax costs much less than the Paulson plan. And if you believe in a historic model (as I do), a zero capital gains tax would lead to a dramatic increase in federal revenue through a larger, more competitive and more prosperous economy.
Fourth, immediately pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income the American economy would boom and government revenues would grow.
Question Three: Will the Paulson plan be implemented with transparency and oversight?
Answer: Implementation of the Paulson plan is going to be a mess. It is going to be a great opportunity for lobbyists and lawyers to make a lot of money. Who are the financial magicians Paulson is going to hire? Are they from Wall Street? If they’re from Wall Street, aren't they the very people we are saving? And doesn’t that mean that we’re using the taxpayers’ money to hire people to save their friends with even more taxpayer money? Won't this inevitably lead to crony capitalism? Who is going to do oversight? How much transparency is there going to be? We still haven't seen the report which led to bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is "secret". Is our $700 billion going to be spent in "secret" too? In practical terms, will a bill be written in public so people can analyze it? Or will it be written in a closed room by the very people who have been collecting money from the institutions they are now going to use our money to bail out?
Question Four: In two months we will have an election and then there will be a new administration. Is this plan something we want to trust to a post-Paulson Treasury?
Answer: We don’t know who will inherit this plan.
The balance of power on election day will shift to either McCain or Obama. Who will they pick for Treasury Secretary? What will their allies want done? We are about to give the next administration a level of detailed control over big companies on a scale even FDR did not exercise during the Great Depression. Is this really wise?
For these reasons I hope Congress will slow down and have an open debate.
And in the course of that debate, I hope someone will introduce an economic recovery act that makes America a better place to grow jobs. I hope the details will be made public before the vote.
For more details on my action plan for getting the American economy back on track and building long-term economic prosperity, you can read this message recorded yesterday to American Solutions members.
This is a very important week for the integrity of the Congress.
This is a very important week for the future of America.
If Washington wants our money, then it owes us some answers.
"Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000."
Ok not spent today but certainly intended for the next few months.
You're having trouble with what here? The $4 Trillion run up in our defict under Bush? How can you, it's straight from the Treasury. Calling me dishonest is a new low for you as I gave you the official debt calculator web page. Too left wing for you? Talk to the US Treasury.
This is the amount the deficit has increased through today under your boy. That's what I typed earlier, and that's what it is. So now what, you want to discect the deficit? You can't. It's all his, every penny. This is the very definition of a Federal Deficit. Deficit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This administration made no effort to balance anything. Made no effort to pay down anything.
Now, Does the deficit stop increasing today? Of course not. So Chuckles, what number are you putting in for the rest of this year. You know, the end of mighty mouse's term?
Zero? A tad dishonest, wouldn't you day? Doesn't bother you? Why am I not surprised. Take that $4 trillion and divide it by 92 months and the Bush Administration is averaging
$43,478,260,870
a month
Times 4 additional months equals
$173,913,043,478
How about the interest on the deficit for the 4 months to the end of Bush's term?
$32,423,365,400
The $1.8 Billion I put in for the bailout. Problem? Why, that's the real number.
"The Treasury plan, which follows a new federal guarantee for money market fund holdings, would push Washington's potential bailout tab to $1.8 trillion." -CNBC
This adds up to close enough to $6 Trillion over here.
Here's a Bloomburg article that Rick has studiously avoided mentioning, maybe because it goes against everything he's said and continues to say. Bloomberg.com: Opinion!
I make it a point to stay away from anything right wing. Kevin Hassett works for the American Enterprise Institute which is way further right wing than Atila The Hun was. They write the Bush Adminstration's public policy and are Bush Apologists.
As usual Sailaway21 doesn't check his sources before posting. Or...maybe he did.... isn't this what Bush Apologists do...stick together against the rising tide of public discontent?
