Obama lowered the Deficit by $361 Billion.

  • 67 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Blue-Sky (10331 posts) -

Obama cut the deficit and slowed spending to lowest level in 50 years.

When Bush entered the white house, the annual budget had a $236 Billion surplus.
When he left, the budget had a $1.4 Trillion annual deficit.

Since then, Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion, by next year $977 Billion

Not only has the president cut the deficit by $312 billion during his first term (so far), but he's cut the deficit by $200 billion in the past year alone. And the CBO projected that the 2013 Obama budget, if enacted as is, would shrink the deficit to $977 billion -- a four year total of nearly $500 billion in deficit reduction.

2012-10-10-chart_spending_growth.jpg

This country does have a spending problem, we're still adding a trillion to the national debt every year but is the president's spending out of control? Is he increasing spending? Absolutely not. Despite what republicans are trying to pin on him, he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit. and it makes me think that if we didn't have the Wallstreet collapse in 2008, the deficit would have been much lower.

What changed?
In 2010, Obama signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue. In other words, every bill passed MUST be paid for. So something like the Bush tax cuts - which included no compensation for lose of revenue couldn't have pass.

Ironically, not a single republican voted for this bill...

#2 Posted by DaBrainz (7673 posts) -
Yeah nobody claimed Bush was better. This is still unacceptable.
#3 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

I wonder how much of that decrease is due to legislation (Obama hasn't been able to get that much done due to Republicvnt obstructionism) as opposed to the fact that the economy is in much better shape now than when Bush left.

#4 Posted by Blue-Sky (10331 posts) -

I wonder how much of that decrease is due to legislation (Obama hasn't been able to get that much done due to Republicvnt obstructionism) as opposed to the fact that the economy is in much better shape now than when Bush left.

Barbariser

It doesn't matter. The Paygo Act he passed in 2010 mandates ALL bills must be offset by revenue. So spending either stays the same or lowers deficit.For example, He's big American Jobs Act he tried to pass last year and was denied by the Republicans, was offset by tax increases and closed loop holes.

#5 Posted by Mochyc (4421 posts) -
*2009 stimulus reassigned to Obama.
#6 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15042 posts) -

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

#7 Posted by General_X (9031 posts) -

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

limpbizkit818
I think you're giving the presidential position a little to much credit if you think that one man can erase a $1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. I'm happy to see that it is moving in the right direction, and I hope it will continue to do so. The only real way to completely erase the deficit is massive cooperation amongst the major branches of government, and I think we all know that will likely never happen as long as everyone in congress remains so entrenched along their party lines.
#8 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15042 posts) -
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

General_X
I think you're giving the presidential position a little to much credit if you think that one man can erase a $1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. I'm happy to see that it is moving in the right direction, and I hope it will continue to do so. The only real way to completely erase the deficit is massive cooperation amongst the major branches of government, and I think we all know that will likely never happen as long as everyone in congress remains so entrenched along their party lines.

We have a topic complimenting Obama for running a $1+ trillion deficit and I'm the one giving the President to much credit?
#9 Posted by Blue-Sky (10331 posts) -

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

limpbizkit818

Do you have any idea how hard it is to lower the deficit during a recession? It's easy to bring it up, hard to bring it down. Even Romney/Ryan admitted that they won't balance the budget by 2016 and Obama only promised to cut in half by 2012 (he only managed 20%)

Romney current plan promises to balance the budget by 2022.

I said this country has a spending problem, but Obama's not the problem. We're clearly heading in the right direction when it comes to spending.

#10 Posted by ristactionjakso (5730 posts) -

Hmmm, but how has he handled the overall debt? He added to that by a considerable amount.

#11 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

limpbizkit818
So we'd be better off now if the government had been running a surplus for the past 4 years?
#12 Posted by Blue-Sky (10331 posts) -

Hmmm, but how has he handled the overall debt? He added to that by a considerable amount.

ristactionjakso

If there's a deficit, of course the debt will increase.

Regardless of who is in the white house, the debt would have increased by 1 trillion every year.

The national debt will increase by another 3 trillion by 2016 whether Romney or Obama is in the white house. There is nothing anyone can do about the national debt right now other than try to balance the annual budget.

#13 Posted by General_X (9031 posts) -
[QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

limpbizkit818
I think you're giving the presidential position a little to much credit if you think that one man can erase a $1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. I'm happy to see that it is moving in the right direction, and I hope it will continue to do so. The only real way to completely erase the deficit is massive cooperation amongst the major branches of government, and I think we all know that will likely never happen as long as everyone in congress remains so entrenched along their party lines.

We have a topic complimenting Obama for running a $1+ trillion deficit and I'm the one giving the President to much credit?

Yes as others have mentioned the reduction can probably also be attributed to other factors besides the president. But is you blaming the entirety of a $1.1 trillion dollar deficit on him any better than others praising him alone for lowering it 20%?
#14 Posted by Born_Lucky (1625 posts) -

Obama added 6 trillion dollars to the debt in 4 years.

That's more than twice as much as Bush did in 8 years.

But the fact that he lied about the attack being caused by a youtube video, and is now saying that he never blamed the youtube video, . .

. . . makes him the slimiest liar that's sat in that office in more than 100 years.

He's disgusting.

#15 Posted by MrMr-x2 (88 posts) -

This was the NASA funding that he cut.

#16 Posted by General_X (9031 posts) -

Obama added 6 trillion dollars to the debt in 4 years.

That's more than twice as much as Bush did in 8 years.

But the fact that he lied about the attack being caused by a youtube video, and is now saying that he never blamed the youtube video, . .

. . . makes him the slimiest liar that's sat in that office in more than 100 years.

He's disgusting.

Born_Lucky
Once again everyone blaming solely the president for problems that all of the government caused: [QUOTE="Washington Post"]First of all, Obama has failed to convince Congress to enact some of his proposed policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy that likely would have reduced the deficit and thus kept the debt growing more slowly. But more to the point, a major factor in the debt explosion has been the decline in government revenues because of the recession. One could argue and Romney might that the laggard recovery is the result of Obamas policies and thus he should also get all of the blame for the decline in revenues. But the chart below shows that the decline in revenues (the red line) began at start of the recession a year before Obama took office. The chart also shows an explosion of spending (blue line) began at the start of the recession that is the result of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance kicking in. The spending kept going up, and a good chunk of that is Obamas responsibility. Still, as the chart shows, it is not such a simple answer to pin this all on Obamas 'policies.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/is-obama-responsible-for-a-5-trillion-increase-in-the-debt/2012/05/15/gIQACA0QSU_blog.html
#17 Posted by Blue-Sky (10331 posts) -

Obama added 6 trillion dollars to the debt in 4 years.

That's more than twice as much as Bush did in 8 years.

He's disgusting.

Born_Lucky

The single fact that Bush had a surplus completely invalidates this comparison.

Obama started with a deficit, Bush did not. If there is a deficit, it's expected for the debt to increase by the deficit * X years regardless of who is president.

By all means, tell me what was the perfered increase in debt from 2008 to 2012 were you expecting with a 1.4 trillion Deficit?

Handling budget is far more important than the national debt. The budget is what's controls it. By comparison, the Obama administration have been far more fiscally responsible than the Bush administration.

#18 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15042 posts) -

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

-Sun_Tzu-

So we'd be better off now if the government had been running a surplus for the past 4 years?

Even if tightening government spending kept the country in a recession for longer it may have been beneficial in the long run. How is anyone to know? Now we're stuck at sub 2% growth for god knows how long and Washington is a mess. I wasn't expecting them to axe the entire deficit.

Some people set their standards far too low.....

#19 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15042 posts) -
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="General_X"]I think you're giving the presidential position a little to much credit if you think that one man can erase a $1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. I'm happy to see that it is moving in the right direction, and I hope it will continue to do so. The only real way to completely erase the deficit is massive cooperation amongst the major branches of government, and I think we all know that will likely never happen as long as everyone in congress remains so entrenched along their party lines.General_X
We have a topic complimenting Obama for running a $1+ trillion deficit and I'm the one giving the President to much credit?

Yes as others have mentioned the reduction can probably also be attributed to other factors besides the president. But is you blaming the entirety of a $1.1 trillion dollar deficit on him any better than others praising him alone for lowering it 20%?

So help me understand: -The deficit can not be controlled by Obama. Some things are outside the scope of the white house. -Obama gets credit for the 20% reduction. How convenient for him. How much do you blame Bush for his deficit? Now now, don't give the President too much credit. 9/11, 2001 recession, housing bubble, Katrina.........
#20 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

limpbizkit818
So we'd be better off now if the government had been running a surplus for the past 4 years?

Even if tightening government spending kept the country in a recession for longer it may have been beneficial in the long run. How is anyone to know? Now we're stuck at sub 2% growth for god knows how long. I wasn't expecting Washington to axe the entire deficit. Some people set their standards far too low.....

May have been beneficial in the long run how? If we're talking long-term, pervasive long term unemployment has a devastating impact in the long run. Why is it preferable to implement policies that ignore and exacerbate the actual crisis that is going on today because it might lead to marginally better growth at some point in the indefinite future?
#21 Posted by General_X (9031 posts) -
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="General_X"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] We have a topic complimenting Obama for running a $1+ trillion deficit and I'm the one giving the President to much credit?

Yes as others have mentioned the reduction can probably also be attributed to other factors besides the president. But is you blaming the entirety of a $1.1 trillion dollar deficit on him any better than others praising him alone for lowering it 20%?

So help me understand: -The deficit can not be controlled by Obama. Some things are outside the scope of the white house. -Obama gets credit for the 20% reduction. How convenient for him. How much do you blame Bush for his deficit? Now now, don't give the President too much credit. 9/11, 2001 recession, housing bubble, Katrina.........

I never blamed or praised Obama for anything, stop setting up a strawman. My argument is that it's pretty **** stupid to lay all the blame or all the praise on the President's shoulders, but since he's one entity it's easy for people to use him as a scapegoat.
#22 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

General_X

I think you're giving the presidential position a little to much credit if you think that one man can erase a $1.4 Trillion dollar deficit.

Only one.

[spoiler] ron-paul-revolution.png [/spoiler]

#23 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

You're naive if you think Ron Paul would single handedly eliminate the deficit.

#24 Posted by JohnF111 (14093 posts) -
Yet people want Obama out o' there because he's fixing the country... Ignorant people.
#25 Posted by whipassmt (14034 posts) -

"during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bushs average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP the highest level for any three years since World War II".

Now Obama' high spending per GDP may be due to a lower GDP rather than more spending (though it is likely a combination of both).

Also the TC's graph shows that Obama has cut "growth in spending" , not spending per se.

Also when people criticize Bush for the growth in spending that occurred under him, it is somewhat unfair considering that a lot of that is due to national security (in fact the Clinton Administration wanted to hire more intelligence and counter-terrorism personnel, but Congress wouldn't allocate the funding. After 9/11 Congress allocated the funding and Bush hired these personnel).

#26 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42966 posts) -

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

limpbizkit818
Not going to lie, I rofl'd too.
#27 Posted by whipassmt (14034 posts) -

It should be pointed out that the deficit has been at or above $1 Trillion dollars every year Obama was president (though some of that is due to the poor economy). The only year Bush had a deficit above $1 Trillion is FY 2009 (which started during Bush's administration but ended during the Obama Administration, So Bush and Obama shared responsibility for that one. The big leap between FY 2009's $1.4 Trillion deficit and FY 2008's $859 billion deficit is due to actions taken by Bush and Obama to deal with the recession and the financial collapse).

Also, circumstances and Congress play their role, not just the President. Bush's Plan in 2007 would've eliminated the deficit by 2012, but circumstances prevented that.

#28 Posted by Wasdie (49995 posts) -

This is a very interesting report considering I was just reading thiswhich says the deficit has increased by 5.5 trillion since 2009. While Obama increased spending by 11% in those 3 years (policies that were started under Bush contributed an additional 4% increase) and Obama decreased the government's revenue by 13% in the 3 years (Bush decreased revenue by 11%) and the rest of the increase in deficit and reduction of revenue can be contributed to other sources, that's a far different statement than Obama lowered the defict by $361 billion. The numbers add up to him at least contributing a 24% increase in the debt through his policies alone, other discretionary spending of course outpacing him.

Just pointing that one out.

The last President to lower the deficit was Clinton. It would have continued through Bush if 9/11 never happened nor the recession. It's not any one president's fault that our deficit continues to increase.

#29 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
I'll never understand why people care more about the deficit than the jobs situation.
#30 Posted by whipassmt (14034 posts) -

This is a very interesting report considering I was just reading thiswhich says the deficit has increased by 5.5 trillion since 2009. While Obama increased spending by 11% in those 3 years (policies that were started under Bush contributed an additional 4% increase) and Obama decreased the government's revenue by 13% in the 3 years (Bush decreased revenue by 11%) and the rest of the increase in deficit and reduction of revenue can be contributed to other sources, that's a far different statement than Obama lowered the defict by $361 billion. The numbers add up to him at least contributing a 24% increase in the debt through his policies alone, other discretionary spending of course outpacing him.

Just pointing that one out.

The last President to lower the deficit was Clinton. It would have continued through Bush if 9/11 never happened nor the recession. It's not any one president's fault that our deficit continues to increase.

Wasdie

As I pointed out in another post (i think it's actually right above your post that I'm quoting), Bush's 5-year Budget of 2007 would have lowered the deficit and balanced the budget by 2012 without raising taxes, but then the recession occured.

Also, when the Huffpost (which I think is a liberal site), claims that Obama reduced the deficit by $361 billion they are comparing the current deficit ($1.1 Trillion for FY 2012) with the $1.4 Trillion Deficit of FY 2009 (FY 2009 deficit was so large due to the economic crisis and Bush's and Obama's "bailouts"). Now if we compared the deficit from FY 2012 to that of FY 2008 (The last deficit that accrued solely during the Bush Administration, a deficit which was also the highest of the Bush Administration, except for FY 2009).

Also it should be clearly pointed out: Obama increased spending, but he decreased the rate at which spending increased. This is a big difference. Here is a scenario to illustrate this. Last say this year you spent 20% more than you did last year, but last year you spent 25% more than you did the year before. That is an increase in spending but a decrease in spending growth.

#31 Posted by whipassmt (14034 posts) -

I'll never understand why people care more about the deficit than the jobs situation.Abbeten
a better jobs situation would actually lower the deficit (more tax revenue, less welfare and unemployment spending).

#32 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]I'll never understand why people care more about the deficit than the jobs situation.whipassmt

a better jobs situation would actually lower the deficit (more tax revenue, less welfare and unemployment spending).

Exactly, which is why focusing on jobs just makes more sense. But for some reason, people think that we'll turn into Greece if we don't immediately implement drastic austerity measures.
#33 Posted by VendettaRed07 (14012 posts) -

Thats easy when you take away ****ing spaceships.

#34 Posted by whipassmt (14034 posts) -

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]I'll never understand why people care more about the deficit than the jobs situation.Abbeten

a better jobs situation would actually lower the deficit (more tax revenue, less welfare and unemployment spending).

Exactly, which is why focusing on jobs just makes more sense. But for some reason, people think that we'll turn into Greece if we don't immediately implement drastic austerity measures.

I think we can focus on jobs and deficit reduction at the same time. It's possible that a high national debt may be bad for employment, though i'm not sure the details of how that argument works.

#35 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] a better jobs situation would actually lower the deficit (more tax revenue, less welfare and unemployment spending).

whipassmt

Exactly, which is why focusing on jobs just makes more sense. But for some reason, people think that we'll turn into Greece if we don't immediately implement drastic austerity measures.

I think we can focus on jobs and deficit reduction at the same time. It's possible that a high national debt may be bad for employment, though i'm not sure the details of how that argument works.

That argument basically says that businesses will abstain from investing if they feel the government's finances are unsustainable and will inevitably result in a financial collapse. It doesn't really hold because businesses cite lack of demand for their products or services as the main reason for pulling back on investment, and interest rates on government debt are negative, which show supreme investor confidence in the government's stability. I agree we need to focus on deficit reduction, I just think that trying for that while simultaneously boosting job growth is going to result in a mediocre showing for both efforts.
#36 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

limpbizkit818

Thanks for making it clear you're unable to comprehend the topic.

Obama reduced yearly spending on useless programs Bush inacted, meaning the USA spends $300 billion less every year.
Considering the US is $16 trillion in debt, and creditors around the globe are scared to invest in a dying country, Obama's doing a good job to save you.

#37 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

Nibroc420

Thanks for making it clear you're unable to comprehend the topic.

Obama reduced yearly spending on useless programs Bush inacted, meaning the USA spends $300 billion less every year.
Considering the US is $16 trillion in debt, and creditors around the globe are scared to invest in a dying country, Obama's doing a good job to save you.

No creditor is scared to lend money to the US government.

#38 Posted by whipassmt (14034 posts) -

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

Nibroc420

Thanks for making it clear you're unable to comprehend the topic.

Obama reduced yearly spending on useless programs Bush inacted, meaning the USA spends $300 billion less every year.
Considering the US is $16 trillion in debt, and creditors around the globe are scared to invest in a dying country, Obama's doing a good job to save you.

That is not what the article said. The article said Obama decreased the rate of spending increase, not that he decreased spending. The deficit has been more than $1 Trillion dollar every year that Obama was in office, it has been less than $1 Trillion every year Bush was in office except for Fiscal Year 2009.

#39 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

-Sun_Tzu-

Thanks for making it clear you're unable to comprehend the topic.

Obama reduced yearly spending on useless programs Bush inacted, meaning the USA spends $300 billion less every year.
Considering the US is $16 trillion in debt, and creditors around the globe are scared to invest in a dying country, Obama's doing a good job to save you.

No creditor is scared to lend money to the US government.

Yet the credit rating continues to drop...
#40 Posted by Abbeten (2898 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Thanks for making it clear you're unable to comprehend the topic.

Obama reduced yearly spending on useless programs Bush inacted, meaning the USA spends $300 billion less every year.
Considering the US is $16 trillion in debt, and creditors around the globe are scared to invest in a dying country, Obama's doing a good job to save you.

Nibroc420

No creditor is scared to lend money to the US government.

Yet the credit rating continues to drop...

And yet interest rates on government debt continue on in the negatives. Investors are literally paying the government to take their money. Also, did you even read report that Moody's wrote to accompany the credit downgrade?
#41 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

Interest rates on government debt continue on in the negatives.Abbeten

Uhh what?

"Borrow money, dont pay interest, get paid interest!"

What sort of BS troll logic are you going on about?
Negative interest on debt?

#42 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Thanks for making it clear you're unable to comprehend the topic.

Obama reduced yearly spending on useless programs Bush inacted, meaning the USA spends $300 billion less every year.
Considering the US is $16 trillion in debt, and creditors around the globe are scared to invest in a dying country, Obama's doing a good job to save you.

Nibroc420

No creditor is scared to lend money to the US government.

Yet the credit rating continues to drop...

Yet interest rates remain at historic lows...

#43 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] No creditor is scared to lend money to the US government.

-Sun_Tzu-

Yet the credit rating continues to drop...

Yet interest rates remain at historic lows...

They're in the negatives according to another poster :|
#44 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

Interest rates on government debt continue on in the negatives.Nibroc420

Uhh what?

"Borrow money, dont pay interest, get paid interest!"

What sort of BS troll logic are you going on about?
Negative interest on debt?

You seem to have a really firm grasp of the subject that you're talking about.
#45 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Yet the credit rating continues to drop...Nibroc420

Yet interest rates remain at historic lows...

They're in the negatives according to another poster :|

They are negative for short-term treasury securities. All of this info can easily be found at bloomberg.com
#46 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

Interest rates on government debt continue on in the negatives.-Sun_Tzu-

Uhh what?

"Borrow money, dont pay interest, get paid interest!"

What sort of BS troll logic are you going on about?
Negative interest on debt?

You seem to have a really firm grasp of the subject that you're talking about.

I wish i could go to my bank, borrow $500,000, and get paid $2000 a month for doing so! Only in America i suppose.
#47 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]

Uhh what?

"Borrow money, dont pay interest, get paid interest!"

What sort of BS troll logic are you going on about?
Negative interest on debt?

Nibroc420
You seem to have a really firm grasp of the subject that you're talking about.

I wish i could go to my bank, borrow $500,000, and get paid $2000 a month for doing so! Only in America i suppose.

Which says something about the state of the global economy and how safe it is to invest money in US treasury bonds.
#48 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You seem to have a really firm grasp of the subject that you're talking about.

I wish i could go to my bank, borrow $500,000, and get paid $2000 a month for doing so! Only in America i suppose.

Which says something about the state of the global economy and how safe it is to invest money in US treasury bonds.

Safe to invest in a country that's in debt, going further into debt, and has had it's credit rating dropping substantially for the past few years?
#49 Posted by mingmao3046 (2488 posts) -
 .
#50 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I wish i could go to my bank, borrow $500,000, and get paid $2000 a month for doing so! Only in America i suppose.

Which says something about the state of the global economy and how safe it is to invest money in US treasury bonds.

Safe to invest in a country that's in debt, going further into debt, and has had it's credit rating dropping substantially for the past few years?

It's safe to lend to a country that is the sole creator of the currency that is being lent.