APPROVED: US national debt... $9,000,000,000,000.00

[Stella]

I'm wondering the total interest on the existing US national debt!!!
Must be horrific....


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060317/D8GD1CKG6.html



Senate Passes $2.8 Trillion 2007 Budget
Email this Story

Mar 16, 8:51 PM (ET)

By ANDREW TAYLOR
Google sponsored links
iraq currency.net - $1 dollar equals $1460 Dinar Invest Today for Boom Later
www.iraqcurrency.net

Pro-Troops/Con-this war? - Finally, a song and site for you! Join Our Virtual Candlelight Vigil
www.ournoblecause.com


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Thursday passed an election-year budget plan forsaking President Bush's tax cuts and Medicare curbs, hours after lifting the ceiling on the national debt to $9 trillion.
The spending blueprint, approved 51-49, little resembles Bush's proposal last month for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.
To the disappointment of budget hawks, the Senate's measure would break Bush's proposed caps on spending for programs such as education, low-income heating subsidies and health research.
Vice President Dick Cheney was on hand for a possible tie-breaking vote, but that proved unnecessary.
Senators earlier voted 52-48 to send Bush a measure that would allow the government to borrow an additional $781 billion and prevent a first-ever default on Treasury notes.
As a result, the government could pay for the war in Iraq without raising taxes or cutting popular domestic programs.
The House, meanwhile, overwhelmingly approved a $92 billion measure that would provide more money for the war in Iraq and hurricane relief for the Gulf Coast.
The budget blueprint advanced without Cheney's vote in the Republican-led Senate when Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu supported the plan after winning concessions to help her hurricane-damaged state of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.
She won inclusion of a proposal that could provide up $2 billion a year for levee and coastal restoration projects. The money would come from auctioning television airwaves to wireless companies and from potential oil lease revenues from exploration in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.
Among the specific votes for the budget plan were:
_$3 billion more for heating subsidies for the poor. It passed 51-49.
_$7 billion more for education, health and worker safety accounts. It passed 73-27.
_$1.2 billion more for aviation security and stopping Bush's proposed increase in airline ticket taxes. They advanced by voice vote.
_$1 billion more for benefits for military survivors.
The votes Thursday set up a confrontation with the House, which is certain to oppose the additional spending.
In fact, the Senate's moves appear to make it less likely that Congress will settle on a final budget plan this spring. House Republicans will not release their budget until after next week's congressional recess.
The votes dismayed deficit hawks such as Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. He already had decided to drop Bush's proposals to cut the growth of Medicare, strengthen tax-free health savings accounts and advance legislation to make permanent his 2001 tax cuts.
Republicans are eager to show their conservative supporters that they are getting serious about cracking down on spending. Last weekend, GOP presidential aspirants at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis, Tenn., promised to be more thrifty with the people's money.
But GOP moderates such as Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania apparently did not get the message. His amendment to add $7 billion for education, health and labor programs won support from most Republicans, including Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who has criticized Congress for embarking "down a wayward path of wasteful Washington spending."
"All the talk in Memphis just doesn't comport with the realities of these important items" such as education and health research, Specter said.
The debt limit increase was the fourth of Bush's presidency, totaling $3 trillion. With the budget deficit expected to approach $400 billion for both this year and next, an additional increase in the debt limit almost certainly will be required next year.
Treasury Secretary John Snow applauded Congress for "protecting the full faith and credit of the United States." He said it ensures that the government "can deliver on promises already made, such as Social Security and Medicare payments and aid for the victims of the 2005 hurricanes."
The present limit on the debt is $8.2 trillion.
The increase is an unhappy necessity - the alternative would be a disastrous first-ever default on U.S. obligations - that greatly overshadowed a mostly symbolic, weeklong debate on the GOP's budget resolution.
Democrats blasted the bill, saying it was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by Bush, who came to office when the government was running record surpluses.
"When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "The three largest deficits in our nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch."
Unlike last year, when Congress passed a bill trimming $39 billion from the deficit through curbs to Medicaid, Medicare and student loan subsidies, Senate GOP leaders have abandoned plans to cut mandatory programs.

[solvs]

Yes. We're screwed. Remind me again why they call them conservatives? Clinton was more conservative than this guy and his lackeys in Congress.

[zimv20]

link (http://nytimes.com/2006/03/18/politics/18budget.html?hp&ex=1142658000&en=c0630bcbdfffc66a&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


Politics Drives a Senate Spending Spree

WASHINGTON, March 17 — The largess demonstrated by the Senate in padding its budget with billions of dollars in additional spending this week showed that lawmakers are no different from many of their constituents: they don't mind pulling out the charge card when money is tight.

Just hours after opening a new line of credit through an increase in the federal debt limit, the Senate splurged on a bevy of popular programs before approving a spending plan that was as much a political document as an economic one, its fine print geared to the coming elections.

Forced to choose between calls for renewed austerity and demands for more money, many Republicans joined Democrats in reaching deeper into the Treasury, leaving the party's push for new fiscal restraint in tatters.

Some of their colleagues said it was an open-and-shut case of nervous politicians ducking a tough spending stance to avoid starring in negative campaign commercials. Republicans in some of this year's tightest races — Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Jim Talent of Missouri and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — all backed the chief budget-busting provision as they endorsed an extra $7 billion for medical research, education and worker safety.

Lawmakers, analysts and others said the Senate's reluctance to clamp down on spending was a natural result of an approach that fails to recognize a sharply changed reality. In some respects, the administration and Congress act as if the surplus that greeted President Bush when he checked into the White House is still in the bank, rather than recognizing that whatever windfall was available then was eaten up and more by tax cuts.

The reality is that the cuts, plus two wars, new domestic security needs, natural disasters and a big expansion of Medicare have left the government's account badly overdrawn with no prospect of getting it back in balance anytime soon.

The criticisms set out by many Democrats — that no real progress can be made in setting the nation's finances right until Congress proves willing to revisit the tax cuts and that the nation is failing to invest sufficiently in addressing its economic and social ills — do not receive much of a hearing in a Washington where Republicans are in charge.

"I think the critical flaw is the failure to adjust fiscal policy in the face of new circumstances," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates reducing the deficit through spending cuts and tax increases.

Mr. Bixby and others say the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration have shown a near total disregard for fiscal discipline, running up new debt.

"The problem we have had on the budget all along is a lack of adult supervision on the part of the White House," said Bruce Bartlett, an economist and author of a new book critical of Mr. Bush's economic record. "You can't blame members of Congress for looking out for their parochial interests. It is the president's responsibility to look out for the national interest."

With the president's influence on Capitol Hill slipping along with his poll numbers, it is unclear how much authority Mr. Bush could exert over lawmakers regardless. Senate Republicans showed no hesitation about bursting through the spending ceiling he set, adding more than $16 billion after eliminating some of his cuts. And while the House, which was considering $92 billion in emergency war spending and hurricane aid, rejected most efforts to increase that total, lawmakers did buy a few extras, including $50 million more for peacekeeping in Darfur.

Almost lost in all the budget and spending activity was the fact that House and Senate negotiators continue to try to hammer out an agreement for new tax cuts that could cost another $70 billion over five years.

(more)

[Heb1228]

Yes. We're screwed. Remind me again why they call them conservatives?
You're right. This is terrible. Its really time to start cutting our budget. Not just cuts in growth, actual cuts. There are a lot of Republicans in this congress that disgust me as a fiscal conservative. (But I still think they're better than Democrats would be.)

[zap2]

i recall last year, i was counting down to 8 trillion(had to tell a teacher of mine for personal reason:rolleyes: )

Wow already up to 9 trillion, it a shame. The USA government has less control with money then i do!:D

[zimv20]

I still think they're better than Democrats would be.
based on what, exactly -- the clinton era budget surpluses? or all the cries from congressional democrats over the past 5 years for fiscal prudence?

[Heb1228]

based on what, exactly -- the clinton era budget surpluses? or all the cries from congressional democrats over the past 5 years for fiscal prudence?
Don't forget those budget surpluses were under a Republican congress after '94. Plus when Bush released a budget this past year that cut (the growth) in discretionary spending, there were liberal groups all over CSPAN yelling about every program that was going to receive reductions or cuts and how Bush had no heart for trying to cut those programs.

But I think a large part of the blame does go to Bush who is simply not a fiscal conservative other than his affinity for tax cuts.

[Chundles]

Wait, 9 TRILLION!!!

What are you guys buying??:D

[zimv20]

Don't forget those budget surpluses were under a Republican congress after '94.
and it's even more republican now. what changed? who is president, the leadership, monetary policy and more GOP congressmen.

how can you possibly blame the dems for fiscal imprudence? it's disingenuous.

[yg17]

Wait, 9 TRILLION!!!

What are you guys buying??:D


A couple PMG5 quads and a 30" cinema display to go with them.

[OutThere]

Wait, 9 TRILLION!!!

What are you guys buying??:D

Crack, it appears.

[leekohler]

Yes. We're screwed. Remind me again why they call them conservatives? Clinton was more conservative than this guy and his lackeys in Congress.

It always confused me why the Republicans hated Clinton. He did everything they wanted- balanced the budget, NAFTA etc. Oh wait- he had better sex than they did- and stayed married. :)

[Heb1228]

how can you possibly blame the dems for fiscal imprudence? it's disingenuous.
I'm not blaming them, I'm just saying they wouldn't have been any better, and most likely worse. We'll never know for sure. All I know is that when democrats start talking about fiscal 'responsibility,' they usually mean tax hikes and not spending reductions. And I don't consider higher taxes an acceptable solution. The only way this can get fixed is true spending cuts. And it appears neither party is willing to stick its neck out and propose true budget cuts.

[leekohler]

I'm not blaming them, I'm just saying they wouldn't have been any better, and most likely worse. We'll never know for sure. All I know is that when democrats start talking about fiscal 'responsibility,' they usually mean tax hikes and not spending reductions. And I don't consider higher taxes an acceptable solution. The only way this can get fixed is true spending cuts. And it appears neither party is willing to stick its neck out and propose true budget cuts.

No- certainly not the Republicans. They just borrow and spend. At least with Clinton we had a balanced budget- oh wait, a surplus! :rolleyes: Yeah, the Democrats are worse. :rolleyes: And guess what? Lowering taxes doesn't help. You know what? You have to PAY for what you spend. It's called fiscal responsibility.

[Heb1228]

Oh wait- he had better sex than they did- and stayed married. :)
Cute line... except for the fact that republicans have better sex lives than democrats, according to ABC news...

:D not that it has anything to do with this discussion... but you brought up the sex thing

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/News/story?id=180291

The poll analysis includes a breakdown by many subgroups, including region, age and even political party affiliation, which is the topic of results released today:

Of those involved in a committed relationship, who is very satisfied with their relationship?
Republicans — 87 percent; Democrats — 76 percent

Who is very satisfied with their sex life?
Republicans — 56 percent; Democrats — 47 percent

The poll analysis also reveals who has worn something sexy to enhance their sex life:
Republicans — 72 percent; Democrats — 62 percent

When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.

[Heb1228]

No- certainly not the Republicans. They just borrow and spend. At least with Clinton we had a balanced budget- oh wait, a surplus! :rolleyes: Yeah, the Democrats are worse. :rolleyes: And guess what? Lowering taxes doesn't help. You know what? You have to PAY for what you spend. It's called fiscal responsibility.
Or just cut spending. That's the whole point, right? Don't we really agree on this?

[leekohler]

Cute line... except for the fact that republicans have better sex lives than democrats, according to ABC news...

:D not that it has anything to do with this discussion... but you brought up the sex thing

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/News/story?id=180291

This also depends on people being HONEST when they discuss these things. This is hardly evidence. It's just what people say.

[leekohler]

Or just cut spending. That's the whole point, right? Don't we really agree on this?

We do. BUT, you also must be realistic in your approach. If you have to raise taxes to pay for things, then let us know- and in detail. We can handle it.

[Heb1228]

This also depends on people being HONEST when they discuss these things.
Of course it does! So you think they all lied? What in the world kind of evidence is there for that? That you don't like the results?! ;)

We do. BUT, you also must be realistic in your approach. If you have to raise taxes to pay for things, then let us know- and in detail. We can handle it.
Thats true, I would just argue that the cuts should be more drastic than you probably would. I would like to see cuts in spending that drop us back well into the black and give us more opportunity for tax cuts.

But either way, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative I think we can all agree that our government needs to spend much less money than it does.

[skunk]

But either way, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative I think we can all agree that our government needs to spend much less money than it does.A few less idiotic military adventures would be a good start.

[Heb1228]

A few less idiotic military adventures would be a good start.
I figured I'd leave the specifics for another time and just revel in the agreement for once. :D

[zimv20]

I'm not blaming them, I'm just saying they wouldn't have been any better, and most likely worse. We'll never know for sure.
...and therefore you declare yourself right. hm.

bush inherited a budget surplus and a national debt that was being paid down. there were more dems in office than there are now. they have been replaced by republicans. we all know what's happened to the deficit and debt since.

if you can't see the correlation, or worse yet, go with the anti-correlation, then what have we really got to talk about? dogmatism, i suppose.

[gekko513]

Did anyone see the TV series where the hacker hero fooled the bad guys by entering a million as 1,000,000.00 when the bad guys pressured him to hack into some european bank and transfer money to them? The number was of course interpreted as just 1.0 since comma is the decimal separator in Europe so the bad guys only got one euro or whatever currency they were using.

Maybe Bush could try that? :p

[Dont Hurt Me]

Iraq is a big part of this equation, getting out would save a ton of money. Republicans have become the borrow and spend party, and then lets do everything behind secret doors. Bush & republican gang have destroyed the budget. destroyed. They love to build bombs and force their corporation ran world on everyone. That isnt what our forfathers intended when drafting the constitution. The document thats under attack by the republican party.

[leekohler]

Of course it does! So you think they all lied? What in the world kind of evidence is there for that? That you don't like the results?! ;)


Nope, but people lie about sex all the time. Do really think all your friends tell you the truth about their sex lives? How many won't even discuss it? Do you really think they ALL told the truth?

[blackfox]

I think it is time for some collective bargaining by the American people. We all get together with a list of demands - and if they are met, then we each donate around $3000. All 300 million of us.

I am not a rich man, but I would give up a shiny new Mac ( a sacrifice, believe me) - for a chance at a clean fiscal slate.

Seriously, although it is unlikely that every person would be willing to donate the amount needed, I think it would be interesting if an attempt was tried.

As long as I'm dreaming, I guess I want a pony.

[takao]

I think it is time for some collective bargaining by the American people. We all get together with a list of demands - and if they are met, then we each donate around $3000. All 300 million of us.

I am not a rich man, but I would give up a shiny new Mac ( a sacrifice, believe me) - for a chance at a clean fiscal slate.


9.000.000.000.000 /
300.000.000 = 30.000 ;)

Seriously, although it is unlikely that every person would be willing to donate the amount needed, I think it would be interesting if an attempt was tried.

As long as I'm dreaming, I guess I want a pony.

me too as long as the pony is made of solid gold ;)

[blackfox]

^^oops. knew I left that decimal place around somewhere...^^

well, never mind then. I'd rather invest in alcohol anyways.

[zimv20]

i've found some historical graphs showing the national debt and budget deficits under recent presidencies:

from here (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html)
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif


from here (http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm)
http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif

shall we keep blaming the dems, heb?

[puckhead193]

Wait, 9 TRILLION!!!

What are you guys buying??:D
$50,000 toilet seat :rolleyes:

anyone want to but Alaska;)

[tristan]

The republican pipe dream is that tax cuts and deficit spending allow the tax base to grow faster than the interest payments on the debt. But that doesn't work, especially when you're spending the money on military spending rather than education or infrastructure.

A situation is being created where soon the only way to make our annual interest payments will be to significantly raise taxes or devalue the dollar - or a combination of both. Wall Street realizes that and that's why any asset that's an inflation hedge, like real estate, oil production, utilities, or good old gold, has been bid up to extremely high levels. Too much fake money chasing too few real goods.

[Mike Teezie]

Wait, 9 TRILLION!!!

What are you guys buying??:D

I'll take a Canon 1Ds MkII, and dual 30" ACDs por favor!

:D

wait, no..........:(

[solvs]

But either way, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative I think we can all agree that our government needs to spend much less money than it does.
So then why always with the defense of the Republicans and bad mouthing the Democrats? Not that any of us actually like the Dems at this point, but it really doesn't matter whether they have an R or a D after their names. Newt and Bill (regardless how I feel about either men) actually had a good thing going that GW has completely thrown out the window. At least he's stopped blaming it on Clinton and 9/11, but these tax cuts are not working. You give tax cuts when things are going well with the budget and deficit, but he insists on them no matter what. He is literally bankrupting this nation, and his lackeys (Reps and Dems) have no problem helping him do so. Some may grumble (Dems and Reps), but it's still happening.

We need to spend on the right things, but further tax cuts during a time of war (as some like to continually point out we are at war) is ridiculous. I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but not being selfish, I'd rather have to pay a few hundred dollars more than cut desperately needed social programs to help balance the budget. People are angry about having to pay so much in taxes because we don't really get as much for what we pay as we should. Drowning the government in a bathtub doesn't really fix the problem. Tax cuts for rich people and big business don't really help either.

[mactastic]

I love it... GOP Congresses, Republic president, and somehow it's STILL the Democrats fault that US debt is out of control.

The cognitive dissonance is deafening.

[D0ct0rteeth]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/22/AR2005112201854.html

Seriously. Lets sell Alaska to Russia or Canada. And pay down this debt. Its basically $30,000 per American (not counting interest), and even if Joe American Family pays about 10,000/year in taxes we know that the Gov't can't survive on that. (3 trillion dollar budget)

Bush's 2007 budget was 2.7 Trillion (But the interest on loans from China and other Foreign counties is accuing and the budget doesnt include war expenses and hurricane relief and so on)
So if we assume that the gov needs 3 Trillion a year, plus needs to pay back Bonds @ 5% (Treasury, not Barry) and figure an extra 500 Billion for just blow money on wars and stuff.. we come up with about 4 Trillion/year.

So either we raise taxes by 33% (more if we want to pay down the principle) or we start sellin ****. 45% tax bracket for everyone!

So anyway - Lets sell Alaska to Canada or Russia, and Hawaii can be sold to Japan... We can prob get 2 Trillion for them... only 7 more to go. hmmm. New Mexico? Maybe N. Dakota?

Or we can just stop giving money to India for Nukes, and going to war in the Middle East :)

[Chundles]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/22/AR2005112201854.html

Seriously. Lets sell Alaska to Russia or Canada. And pay down this debt. Its basically $30,000 per American (not counting interest), and even if Joe American Family pays about 10,000/year in taxes we know that the Gov't can't survive on that. (3 trillion dollar budget)

Bush's 2007 budget was 2.7 Trillion (But the interest on loans from China and other Foreign counties is accuing and the budget doesnt include war expenses and hurricane relief and so on)
So if we assume that the gov needs 3 Trillion a year, plus needs to pay back Bonds @ 5% (Treasury, not Barry) and figure an extra 500 Billion for just blow money on wars and stuff.. we come up with about 4 Trillion/year.

So either we raise taxes by 33% (more if we want to pay down the principle) or we start sellin ****. 45% tax bracket for everyone!

So anyway - Lets sell Alaska to Canada or Russia, and Hawaii can be sold to Japan... We can prob get 2 Trillion for them... only 7 more to go. hmmm. New Mexico? Maybe N. Dakota?

Or we can just stop giving money to India for Nukes, and going to war in the Middle East :)

I got dibs on Manhattan. I'll offer Bush a 100% increase on the original purchase price. I'm sure he'd accept a big pile of beads and shells seeing how he probably really likes shiny objects.

[tristan]

There's nothing inherently bad about using debt financing. If our country was building roads, schools, hospitals, and investing in R&D etc I'd be all for it. All these activities help people and help grow the tax base. The problem is that we're spending the money and not actually addressing any of our social or infrastructure needs.

For example, what if the US gave every college student a 1:1 match on every dollar of tuition? And 2:1 on science/engineering/medicine etc. Sure it would be expensive, and we would add more debt at first. But in three decades, we'd have the most educated workforce in the world and an insurmountable lead in higher education. That would grow the economy and pay for itself.

FYI There are forward-thinking countries out there that do this kind of stuff - the US just isn't one of them anymore.

[skunk]

There's nothing inherently bad about using debt financing. If our country was building roads, schools, hospitals, and investing in R&D etc I'd be all for it. All these activities help people and help grow the tax base. The problem is that we're spending the money and not actually addressing any of our social or infrastructure needs.Besides which, war is possibly the least productive investment possible. Profitable, yes, productive, no.