Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Another Fiscal Year Older and $1.65 Trillion Deeper In Debt
The Committee For a Responsible
Federal Budget celebrates the end of Fiscal Year 2009 with a
breakdown of the year's most appalling
financial and budget statistics. Some highlights:
• $1,650,971,205,167 added to the national debt, bringing the total to $7.5 trillion.
• 99 banks taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company.
• 684 banks receiving support from the Troubled Asset Relief Program that doesn't buy troubled assets.
• 11.2 percent: the percentage of the federal deficit to GDP. This is the highest that ratio has been since Japan surrendered in 1945.
• $164 billion spent out of the entire $787 billion in stimulus funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Most of this has gone to Medicaid, unemployment and the Making Work Pay Tax Credit.
And a whole lot more. Happy Fiscal 2010.
Chad|9.30.09 @ 10:49PM|#
Just a friendly reminder to build a thread upon:
If McCain had been elected, the deficit would have been
substantially the same. If a third party candidate or someone like
Ron Paul had been elected, they might have called for policies that
would have changed the deficit, but these policies would not have
passed through Congress.
In other words, it isn't their fault, but rather
our fault for only electing people who call for more
spending and lower taxes at the same time.
Art-P.O.G.|10.1.09 @ 3:24AM|#
Damn, dude, you almost sound like a libertarian. But then again, you're a smart fellow, and I'd worry about the intelligence of anyone who wasn't generally cynical about politicians and fiscal responsibility.
hmm|9.30.09 @ 11:41PM|#
Lets not forget today's PMI news. Followed by an "OMFG" moment for the market. Of course, the market immediately returned to trading on rainbows and unicorn pee.
Morris|10.1.09 @ 1:05AM|#
The market will solve everything. Reason is selling like hotcakes. Donate now!
John|10.1.09 @ 1:12AM|#
FFFFFFF I hate this new website style. I guess everything from the LA Times to Reason is now officially an industrial print wordshop with a faux-edgy urban geek theme. Awesome.
I'd rather read Hit and Run on an Angelfire page.
Rich|10.1.09 @ 8:35AM|#
If the mid-term elections don't pan out, it'll be Happy Fecal 2010.
(Testing, 1, 2, 3)
JB|10.1.09 @ 1:34AM|#
Off-topic, but one of the best things I've seen today:
"Ask your liberal friends, who's worse: Roman Polanski or Sarah Palin? Make them be specific as to why."
Watch heads explode.
|10.1.09 @ 6:51AM|#
For even more fun, do this in a public place, and watch them try to justify themselves to the bystanders.
-jcr
Geotpf|10.1.09 @ 11:55AM|#
As a liberal, Polanski. Polanski is a kiddie rapist. Palin is entertaining and helps the Democratic Party win elections with her winking and drooling.
|10.1.09 @ 2:00AM|#
FFFFFFF I hate this new website style. I guess everything from the LA Times to Reason is now officially an industrial print wordshop with a faux-edgy urban geek theme. Awesome.
I think it looks good, and change is good. However:
1. The site is not retaining my commenting info. It is highly annoying to have to re-enter my nick and email every time.
2. The site is not attaching email info to my nick.
3. The blog post's author's name on the front page is not hotlinked to their contact/reason info, though it is when you click through to comments.
4. Where is the preview button?
I'll note anything further that I find as I find it.
Ryan|10.1.09 @ 2:34AM|#
Chad: McCain probably would have vetoed the stimulus and allowed GM to go bankrupt.
freeforall232|10.1.09 @ 6:57AM|#
You mean he would have voted against the $800 billion stimulus after he voted for the $800 billion bailout and TARP?!?
A McCain administration would have been as bad as the present administration. Anyone who believes differently is just fooling themselves.
|10.1.09 @ 3:29AM|#
I'm going to predict that NutraSweet dislikes the new threading model. I also predict that because I predict this, and he will probably see it, that he will not in fact complain and will actually praise it. What avenue have I left you, dude?
Chad|10.1.09 @ 7:03AM|#
I disagree, Ryan. McCain just would have passed a more tax-cut heavy stimulus plan....not that this one wasn't about half tax cuts. That's what the Republicans were calling for last winter.
@|10.1.09 @ 7:23AM|#
$1,650,971,205,167 added to the national debt, bringing the total to $7.5 trillion.
What comes after a trillion?
|10.3.09 @ 2:27PM|#
"What comes after a trillion?" After a trillion, a quadrillion. Then a sextillion. Followed by septillion, octillion, nonillion and (I'm guessing now) an Ohsh*tillion. That last is not to be confused with an obamillion.
Kyle Jordan|10.1.09 @ 7:23AM|#
The new set up is ok. I'll give it a couple of days before I say Yay or Nay.
Don't know why but the colors seems harsher and the font's harder to read to my bad eyes. Not clean like before.
Kyle Jordan|10.1.09 @ 7:32AM|#
Ok, here's two complaints. Both centered around the new Hit & Run logo.
1. When I click on the H&R logo atop the page, it takes me to the home page, not the H&R page.
2. The logo's ugly. It's got this air of faux smoothness going on where the previous one was not smooth. It came off a bit messy and befitting of the name "Hit & Run".
BRING BACK THE OLD LOGO!!!
@|10.1.09 @ 7:35AM|#
The new H&R logo looks like something that belongs on a toilet paper package. And yeah, the black serif font on the harsh white background is brutal. Maybe it's meant to discourage the lifers here.
Kyle Jordan|10.1.09 @ 8:05AM|#
Something else I noticed is that the number of comments on an entry onthe main H&R page is not changing.
And the website address in the name section is not hotlinking too. How do you expect me to show off my new idealized self portrait?
And for those interested.....
http://15.media.tumblr.com/Psu.....o1_500.jpg
Gilbert Martin|10.1.09 @ 8:12AM|#
Que the standard liberal democrat response:
It's all Bush's faulut!
@|10.1.09 @ 8:36AM|#
incif is antisocial, comrade. The collective disapproves. You will be re-educated.
|10.1.09 @ 9:13AM|#
So our national debt is now $7.5 trillion? Where does that
fictitious number come from? It was over $10 trillion last year.
See:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....histo5.htm
robc|10.1.09 @ 9:20AM|#
George,
See my comments yesterday on surpluses and private debt vs intergovernmental debt. For some reason (heh), REASON doesnt count intergovernmental debt, even though the Treasurey Dept does.
EJ|10.1.09 @ 10:01AM|#
because intergovermental debt is just an accounting trick. Its the borrowing of the money from the SS fund to the general fund. The debt number that reason posts, the $7 plus trillion is the amount the government as a whole owes on net. And its this number that the laws of economics are concerned with.
mark|10.1.09 @ 1:32PM|#
I don't think that's quite right. If SSA ran a surplus and the Treasury did not spend it, there would be T-Bonds in the SSA office and there would be cash in Treasury accounts. Since all that cash has been spent, they have borrowed $7 trillion on top of the SSA borrowings. The gov owes (and pays interest on) the whole thing.
R C Dean|10.1.09 @ 11:08AM|#
intergovermental debt is just an accounting trick. Its the borrowing of the money from the SS fund to the general fund. The debt number that reason posts, the $7 plus trillion is the amount the government as a whole owes on net. And its this number that the laws of economics are concerned with.
Yeah, it probably shouldn't be included in the total debt numbers if we're using cash basis accounting.
Of course, if we were using accrual accounting, then we would need to account for all the liabilities for Medicare, SocSec, etc., in the outyears. Anyone know what that would look like?
|10.3.09 @ 9:58AM|#
David Walker, the former director of GAO, has been saying the total debt counting unfunded obligations for Social Security, Medicare, and so on, comes to around 58 trillion dollars, about what the whole country is worth. The question is, at what point does the whole thing collapse?
John Galt|10.1.09 @ 7:20PM|#
So Obama is 'saving' the economy with free pay for zero work programs; and medicaid benefits. Yeah, buckle in for the double dip recession from hell, inflation inspired.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245