$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama

Posted by $ Your_Name_Goes_Here 10 years, 3 months ago to Government
53 comments | Share | Flag

I don't know how this can be! Our Dear Leader has told us that he's reducing our deficits. And the new Unaffordable Heathcare Act should net further reductions. I'm sure that by the time The One leaves office we will just be SWIMMING in cash!
SOURCE URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-obama


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by LibertasAutLetum 10 years, 3 months ago
    “The problem is, is that the way BUSH has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.” Barak Hussein Obama - July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 3 months ago
    ... except for the fact that money bills must begin in the House where the Republicans have held a majority for the past four years (two House terms). The President only signs or vetoes the bills sent to him after being passed by both the House and the Senate. And this started under Bush with the bailouts following the wars.
    I was in a graduate economics class in 2009-2010 when our Marxist professor put up a chart of the growth of the money supply under Bush and called on the "conservatives" (me and another guy) to explain what it meant.

    Moreover, "we the people" do not actually owe the money: they, the government, do. No one is coming to your home for $150,000 in Federal Reserve Notes.

    The money supply is expanding. Prices will rise. Investments will fall. Your standard of living will diminish. The culprit is Congress. But Congress is elected by the people. Even self-identified "Tea Party" activists want their Medicaid... especially them because they tend to old folks. We have been through this before: "Not worth a Continental." (And that was a Congress of true and famous patriots...)

    Meanwhile, this was real money... and remained LEGAL TENDER all the way to 1857
    http://ngccoin-production.s3.amazonaws.c...


    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertasAutLetum 10 years, 3 months ago
      "No one is coming to your home for $150,000". Not yet anyway. But to the administration we have right now it might just be the next logical step. And you want to blame this all on Congress? Since when does Lord Obama need their permission for anything?
      Apologists for this sort of bad government behavior would claim they have every right come asking for the money. After all it was spent on us. You remember that whole "You didn't build that" thing?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 years, 3 months ago
        I *think* they are too smart to confront individuals... more likely, there will be a campaign to nationalize 401K plans with some Ponzi scheme rationale of it being a better deal than the current plans we have. Given the intelligence of the typical US voter, this would likely fly.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 3 months ago
          I am switching my IRA to a Roth to get the tax implications out of the way, so that I can start earning money tax-free.
          As for the 401K, I can't touch that for over a decade without huge penalties.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by robertmbeard 10 years, 3 months ago
            Five tax years after your Roth IRA conversion(s), you can withdraw the converted amount without the 10% early withdrawal penalty. So, for example, if you converted in June 2013, the five year clock starts January 1st, 2013. Thus, you can withdraw the conversion amount (but not any earnings) penalty free on or after January 1st, 2018.

            Given the Dems already stated (in late 2013) intention to nationalize 401Ks (and possibly IRAs later), I have already withdrawn everything I can (almost half) right now from my Roth IRAs...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 3 months ago
              "Given the Dems already stated (in late 2013) intention to nationalize 401Ks (and possibly IRAs later), I have already withdrawn everything I can (almost half) right now from my Roth IRAs..."
              This doesn't make sense to me (although politicians often don't make sense) b/c monies in an IRA are shielded from some law suits. It's easier ordinarily for someone to take wealth held outside an IRA. If Congress were going after people's wealth, why would they focus only wealth held within an IRA. You only qualify for an IRA if your income that year was low. So why they go after wealth built by people with lower incomes?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 3 months ago
                Because the wealth is there to be looted.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago
                  And because if you had the ability to put it away, and get special tax treatment by doing so, then you "stole" that tax money from the gov't. This is merely a "social justice" mechanism to equal out the situation for those fellow citizens too poor (or too dumb, but they'll never say that) not to put something away for themselves.

                  They won't outright steal the money, but will require the balance to be reinvested in some gov't security - which will be a worthless piece of paper.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by robertmbeard 10 years, 3 months ago
                    Exactly. They will likely try to force 401Ks and possibly IRAs to only invest in US Treasuries. Their justification will be that it helps service the national debt (where 40% of the debt has to be serviced every 4 years with new debt) and indirectly helps Social Security (where the "trust fund" is almost entirely IOUs from Uncle Sam). Several Dems mentioned this late in 2013 but were quickly silenced by other Dems who didn't want to telegraph their future plans for responding to America's impending Greek-style bankruptcy.

                    When interest rates rise with inflation and make interest on the national debt very difficult to pay, the Feds will resort to many "emergency" moves to help delay the collapse. They may even change the rules to make withdrawals more difficult. So, my recent choices with my Roth IRAs was my way to hedge my bets, to a certain extent...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 3 months ago
                      " They will likely try to force 401Ks and possibly IRAs to only invest in US Treasuries."
                      The scenario of demanding they invest at least a percentage in Treasuries sounds plausible. They'd sell it as a) making sure unsophisticated investors don't take too much risk and b) preventing affluent sophisticated investors from putting all their high churn investments with short-term gains in the IRA while leaving their Treasuries outside the IRA.
                      The real reason would be to suppress Treasury yields so they can afford to keep borrowing and service existing debt. Even this move, though, would cause a backlash worse than the backlash for just getting the budget under control.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by fivedollargold 10 years, 3 months ago
                        Agree with your analysis although affluent investors would probably not qualify for an IRA because of income restrictions.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by robertmbeard 10 years, 3 months ago
                          The income restrictions primarily apply to annual IRA contributions (of up to $5500). If you ever change jobs, you can roll over your 401K balance to a rollover (traditional) IRA. Then, later, you can convert it to a Roth IRA, which has no income restrictions after 2010 to do so. The only kick is that the Roth conversion is taxable as ordinary income in the year of the conversion, since a Roth IRA uses after-tax contributions.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago
                      Spot on. I've wrestled with whether the 10% penalty and taxes is worth withdrawing now and investing in solid assets. One period in my life where I wish I were about 8 yrs older.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by robertmbeard 10 years, 3 months ago
                        After every job change, I would rollover my 401K balance to an IRA. Then, when convenient, I would convert it to a Roth IRA (paying income tax on the conversion amount) for both tax-free growth and later tax-free withdrawal in retirement. Most of my conversions carefully avoided bumping me into the next tax bracket and were done while I am living in Florida (no state income tax).

                        Earlier this year, I had completed my last Roth IRA conversion and had the vast majority of my retirement savings in my Roth IRA. When contemplating what the Dems are planning, as well as limited IRA investment choices that offer a solid hedge against currency devaluation, I decided to hedge my bets by withdrawing Roth IRA contributions and the earliest conversions (that met the 5 year rule), to avoid the 10% early withdrawal tax penalty. If I ever decide to withdraw the rest, I would be hit with a 10% penalty.

                        Losing the tax-free growth on that amount was a difficult choice that was not taken lightly. But I wanted more of my retirement assets unencumbered by the whims of corrupt politicians.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago
                          Smart plan. I'm just curious, what vehicle did you choose for your "liquid" funds?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by robertmbeard 10 years, 3 months ago
                            Gold and silver bullion coins, as a hedge against currency devaluation...
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago
                              Good choice. I hope the purchase amount wasn't over $3k per transaction and in cash.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by robertmbeard 10 years, 3 months ago
                                The purchases were larger than $3K and by checks. The bank reporting requirements concerning large transactions sometimes have $3K or $10K thresholds, with some check purchases exempt. I can't claim to fully know how much of my legal purchases have been reported. Of course, the NSA can probably illegally reconstruct my purchase history without too much effort...
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago
                                  They need the kernel of a reason to do so. Unfortunately, you've given it to them. Hopefully, this is all worst case worrying - but I wouldn't bet on it.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Your_Name_Goes_Here replied 10 years, 3 months ago

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo