National Debt Grows $1 Million a Minute »
Posted by: pagey 9 months, 1 week ago141 Comments Report this Story
Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day or nearly $1 million a minute. What's that mean to you? It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.
Read Full Story at breitbart.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 141
-
0%
TimALoftis9 months, 1 week ago
FTA:
The national debt - the total accumulation of annual budget deficits is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.
That's $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer- style "national debt clock" near New York's Times Square can handle. When the privately owned automated clock was activated in 1989, the national debt was $2.7 trillion.
Reply-
0%
flyonthewallzz9 months, 1 week ago
Makes me wonder what is going to happen to all the gas pumps when the price of fuel triples again.
Reply-
0%
engineer9 months, 1 week ago
Look at http://brillig.com/debt_clock/ to see the increase as it happens
Reply
-
0%
Mr-opinion9 months, 1 week ago
whay car do you drive, my odometer quits at 999,999.99 it won't do a million, and sure the hell won't do 10 billion - thats equivalent to a years worth of GM cars life expectancies.
Reply
-
-
0%
pagey9 months, 1 week ago
The new President will be walking into one hell of a mess, there is no way I would want that job.
Reply-
0%
ProudBlueTexan9 months, 1 week ago
Is that not one of the strateregies of an outgoing dictator, to create such a mess for his (try naming a 'her') successor that no legislation or capital or sacrifice of backtracking can fix it?
You remember that this was brought to you by the gop, period
Reply
-
-
0%
GHOSTWHOWALKS9 months, 1 week ago
Well two things are certain.
1. It will continue to grow. Government is incapable of cutting any spending and the deficits will continue on their upward path. The Fed will just print more money thereby driving down the value of the dollar.
2. There will be a massive tax hike. Which will impact those least capable of paying.
Our choice?
Reply-
-
0%
flyonthewallzz9 months, 1 week ago
"It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States."
US Census of per capita income 2005 (estimate) $25,035
US Census of per capita income 1999 $21,587*
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
*%5 of this income is from Social Security.
"The remaining $4 trillion is owed to Social Security and other government accounts"
Reply
-
-
0%
nikkibabe9 months, 1 week ago
If you morons elect another grumpy white Republican Con in to the WH again in 2008, it will grow at $2million a minute, cause why?
. another 4 years of Iraq occupation.
. possible invasion of Iran, Venezuela & Syria.
. military build up to threaten Putin.
. more tax cuts or Bill Gates, Warren Buffett et.,
Reply -
0%
Charlson9 months, 1 week ago
Now who exactly is responsible for this gross national debt? I say Congress and the President should pick up the tab and leave the public alone. And pork barrell spending should be outlawed. Local initiatives should be local and not subsidized by our government. Bridges to nowhere and studying the farting habits of pigs do not belong in Congressional spending bills.
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
-
0%
joeblowe9 months, 1 week ago
Here's my prediction:
Instead of hiring someone who has SOME idea of what's going on with our nation's finances, the freaking idiot populace will vote in a knucklehead who will either A) Ignore the problem or B) Make it WORSE. Pick almost ANY of the "major" candidates. It will simply be business as usual - more of the same. So far, there are only a couple of those running that REALLY talk about doing what's necessary to get the U.S. back in the black. Ron Paul is one of them.
Hillary, Barry, Rudy, Mitt, even Mike - ALL of them are likely to drive us further into ruin. Mitt talks a good budget, but just shuffling the books is NOT going to be good enough for the kind of debt we are talking about here. It's going to take some SERIOUS changes and management. Just getting most of our troops back from overseas would represent a VERY large savings. So - who can we TRUST to do that?
Reply-
0%
earthlingerer9 months, 1 week ago
Aside from things having NOTHING to do with running the country, the last Clinton that was president did pretty well with all this kind of stuff, I can't imagine the one running now doing worse.
But if we want more and "better" of the same now, a write-in campaign for Neil Bush could start tomorrow... he has all of the "Bush Qualities" that make him fit to be a bush successor.
Reply-
0%
joeblowe9 months, 1 week ago
I suspect you are giving WJC credit for something that he (mostly) inherited. And really, if not for the huge economic hit we took on 9/11, and the fabulous cost of trying to prop up Iraq with our troops, we wouldn't be in as bad a shape as we now are, I suspect. That, and if that idiot Nixon had just stayed the hell OUT of China.
The problem is, every time we get people in DC who just keep on pretending the money appears by magic (which is pretty much ALL of them) our situation gets worse. I am 100% CONFIDENT that Hillary does NOT have the economic smarts to reverse this trend. Neither does Rudi, or Barry and probably not Mitt. Thompson -- forget it.
Reply
-
-
0%
slyboy29 months, 1 week ago
It sickens me to know that the last line of the story is true. These issues will be dealt with when a new president enters the White House. WHAT???? How does that solve anything. It doesn't. Why do we give the president and congress all this power and money (their paychecks) to address things like the national debt (plus several others debated on propeller, such as health care, immigration, and education), just so they can sit on their butts till the next year. No politician is willing to take chances and sacifice themselves for a decent cause.
Reply -
-
-
0%
flyonthewallzz9 months, 1 week ago
Actually based on the time between your comments it is more like $33 million. Give or take about $16.666 grand
Reply
-
-
-
0%
IanFraigun9 months, 1 week ago
Well step number 1 is to get things straight. You want services you gotta pay for them and that means taxes.
Another conservative who wants to cut taxes and as Bush has done massively increase spending will increase the downward spiral.
Even Reagan had a massive tax increase passed to cover his spending as did Bush #1. Problem is we are seeing what happens from a policy that was talked about 8 years ago.
It was pointed out that Bush would increase the deficit so that the debt would be so high the next person would not be able to obtain the funds to expand social programs. He is almost there and continues down that path.
Only way out to retain any social spending is to increase taxes to start paying down the debt, and getting back to the Clinton method of offsetting every increase in spending with a compensating decrease elsewhere or new taxes. The past 7 years we have had no compensating decreases and no tax increases - why expect other than current problems?
Reply-
0%
earthlingerer9 months, 1 week ago
Services??? If you mean protecting the interests of big oil and the richest (not necessarily americans) people holding the US hostage, then I guess we have been "serviced."
How about taxes that most americans would support, like property taxes of 25% of residential real estate value over $1000000 held by individuals, couples, or non-business entities. Maybe big yearly taxes on anything insured for more than $1000000 (besides health and lives)? A consumption tax aimed at overpriced gas-guzzling autos, or "pleasure craft" and vehicles?
Why not just impose a "rich tax"? Taxes that the truly rich would pay to protect their stuff, rather than the unrich footing the bill, as usual. If they paid their share, which they don't, things might be different. Taxing yearly income, or estates, over $10000000 per year at 60% isn't unreasonable.
Reply
-
-
0%
canadianrancher579 months, 1 week ago
Good artical I always wondered who held the debt of your country and was surprised to see what percent was held by American individuals or funds, the part that is from social security is a worry though since it is the future of the baby boomers that is on the line here. Ross Perot the man was considered a loose cannon by many. I still remember the statement " that dog won't hunt" and I also remember the flat tax idea. The problem with his idea was it might interfer with the good times everyone was having. You country and finacial picture would have looked much different if some of his ideas had been taken seriously. This crises is fast approaching the critical mass point and given even a winding down of spending by someone responsible this issue needs to be addressed quickly because it is more of a threat than terrorists will ever be.
Reply-
0%
TheAttacks9 months, 1 week ago
The Bush administration has painted the picture that every day, every second, you're at risk of a terrorist attacking and killing you; and people believe it. That's why the spending will continue at an outrageous rate.
You're right, it needs to stop, but "with the constant threat of terrorism" it won't any time soon. Not until the economy collapses anyways.
Reply
-
-
0%
aceofspades19 months, 1 week ago
We had the largest expansion of government costs when the Great Economist Reagan was in office - we had the largest reduction in national debt when that evil recipient of ******was in office - now we have the largest debt burden ever - I personally would rather have a president getting his rocks off one encounter at a time than one who is capable of screwing 300 million at a time.
Reply-
0%
AOL-my-crater9 months, 1 week ago
Its need to freed much more countries from our moneylender status to our colony status.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
RedstateLib9 months, 1 week ago
Kind goes along with "When your up to your Arse in alligators everyone forgets that you original mission was to drain the swamp".
Reply
-
-
-
0%
canadianrancher579 months, 1 week ago
An economic collapse in your country will make terrorist actions look like a childs game. The majority of people in this part of the world need money to survive, If things go really bad many American citizens will be as hostile as some of those outside your country are. What I worry about is if there is not a change in the thinking of government how long would it be before they turn their weapons on an unruly public. There are a group of people in your country that thinks everthing is rosey and great. It is beyond me how any thinking person can dismiss the plight of most people in your country, Although after reading some of the comments on this site I relize it is not only the well to do that think there are no problems at home and if you have problems then you are the one to blame.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
tdrapeau9 months, 1 week ago
FTA-"The government is in the same predicament as the average homeowner who took out an adjustable mortgage"
Given the economic landscape of late, is an apt simile. Sadly, more and more people I know are being affected by the adjustable-rate mortgage nightmare of 2007.
Good post.
Reply -
0%
pongping9 months, 1 week ago
Congress will not choose to cut spending ever, unless those loaning us the money choose not to lend it to us. Ask your Congressman what he has done to help reign in spending. Somebody, somewhere once said something such as "the one big failing of democracy is that once the people learn that they can vote to spend the treasury, it's doomed." If we are serious, we need to scream louder about all the pork and bombs we're voting for when we re-elect our own Reps. and Senators.
