The $9,036,534,448,884.32 increase in the federal debt under Obama so far equals approximately $76,442 per household.
(CNSNews.com) – Terence P. Jeffrey reports: The federal government passed a fiscal milestone on the first business day of fiscal 2017—which was Monday, Oct. 3—when the total federal debt accumulated during the presidency of Barack Obama topped $9,000,000,000,000 for the first time.
On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to data published by the U.S. Treasury.
As of the close of business on Friday, Sept, 30, the last day of fiscal 2016, the total federal debt was $19,573,444,713,936.79. At that point, the total federal debt had increased under Obama by $8,946,567,665,023.71.
On Monday, Oct. 3, the first business day of fiscal 2017, the total federal debt closed at $19,642,949,742,561.51. At that point, the debt had increased under Obama by $9,016,072,693,648.43 from the $10,626,877,048,913.08 it stood at on the day of Obama’s inauguration.
As of the close of business, on Wednesday, Oct. 5—the latest day for which the Treasury has reported—the total federal debt was $19,663,411,497,797.40. That means that so far in Obama’s presidency, the federal debt has increased $9,036,534,448,884.32.
Given that there were 118,215,000 households in the United States in June (the latest estimate from the Census Bureau), the $9,036,534,448,884.32 increase in the federal debt under Obama so far equals approximately $76,442 per household. Read the rest of this entry »
Massive party breaks out to celebrate Ryan’s spectacular legislative victory, new speaker’s stewardship of $1.1 trillion omnibus budget bill a ‘masterstroke’, hailed as historic success.
Sending U.S. troops to intervene in Syria is a poorly thought out strategy that is likely to backfire.
In Senate testimony on October 27th, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter indicated that the U.S. might be taking on a more direct combat role in Syria’s civil war. Later today, President Obama is expected to announce the deployment of U.S. troops to northern Syria.
“It is time for the president to forcefully state what everyone knows to be true: the United States has no magic formula for solving the Syrian conflict…Outside involvement has fueled the multisided civil war, but failed to deliver a decisive victory for any one faction.”
— Christopher Preble, Cato’s Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies
According to Cato Institute experts, this is a terrible idea.
“Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s statement…that the U.S. military ‘won’t hold back’ from engaging in ‘direct action on the ground’ in Syria is a troubling development,“ says Benjamin Friedman, Research Fellow in Defense and Homeland Security Studies at the Cato Institute. “It does not so much indicate mission creep as continuity of flawed policy. Competing objectives burden U.S. policy: helping weak rebels overthrow Assad, which prolongs the war and aids ISIS, and defeating ISIS, which aids Assad. Until we resolve that contradiction, the value of tactical gains against either foe will be limited. We should cease helping rebels and attack ISIS alone.”
“Unfortunately, there is probably little constructive the United States can do at this point to resolve the conflict in Syria and establish a stable new government. The Obama administration, therefore, should take care not to make a bad situation worse.”
— Visiting Research Fellow Brad Stapleton
Even without U.S. ground troops, the Obama administration’s policy of continuing to fund and arm Syrian rebel groups is problematic enough, especially now that Russia is more deeply involved in backing the Assad regime militarily. According to Visiting Research Fellow Brad Stapleton, this risks getting into a messy proxy war that won’t end well for Washington. “Unfortunately, there is probably little constructive the United States can do at this point to resolve the conflict in Syria and establish a stable new government,” Stapleton writes. “The Obama administration, therefore, should take care not to make a bad situation worse.”
Many commentators have proposed imposing no-fly zones or safe zones in Syria to ease the humanitarian crisis. But, as Emma Ashford, Visiting Research Fellow, explains, this is likely to backfire. “U.S. involvement in Syria displays no strategy, no boundaries and no clear goals,” Ashford writes. “The only viable long-term solution to Syria’s problems is diplomacy. But that has been pushed to the side in favor of airstrikes and limited, ad hoc rebel training programs.” Read the rest of this entry »
“Since the 1990s, federal workers have enjoyed faster compensation growth than private-sector workers…The federal government has become an elite island of secure and high-paid employment, separated from the ocean of average Americans competing in the economy.”
Federal workers’ pay and benefits were 78 percent higher than private employees, who earned an average of $52,688 less than public sector workers last year.
The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector’s average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.
“Since the 1990s, federal workers have enjoyed faster compensation growth than private-sector workers,” according to the study, written by Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at Cato. “In 2014 federal workers earned 78 percent more, on average, than private-sector workers. Federal workers earned 43 percent more, on average, than state and local government workers. Read the rest of this entry »
As college graduates in the Class of 2014 prepare to shift their tassels and accept their diplomas, they leave school with one discouraging distinction: They’re the most indebted class ever.
The average Class of 2014 graduate with student-loan debt has to pay back some $33,000, according to an analysis of government data by Mark Kantrowitz, publisher at Edvisors, a group of web sites about planning and paying for college. Even after adjusting for inflation that’s nearly double the amount borrowers had to pay back 20 years ago.
Meanwhile, a greater share of students is taking on debt to finance higher education. A little over 70% of this year’s bachelor’s degree recipients are leaving school with student loans, up from less than half of graduates in the Class of 1994. Read the rest of this entry »
Ali Meyer reports: The debt of the U.S. government has increased $6.666 trillion since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the latest numbers released by the Treasury Department.
When President Obama was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt of the U.S. government was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to theTreasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. As of Jan. 31, 2014, the latest day reported, the debt was $17,293,019,654,983.61—an increase of $6,666,142,606,070.53 since Obama’s first inauguration.
Jennifer Kabbany writes: A Youth Misery Index that measures young Americans’ woes has skyrocketed under President Barack Obama and hit an all-time high.
The index, released Wednesday, was calculated by adding youth unemployment and average college loan debt figures with each person’s share of the national debt. While it has steadily grown over the decades, under Obama the figure has shot up dramatically, from 83.5 in 2009 to 98.6 in 2013.
The index has increased by 18.1 percent since Obama took office, the highest increase under any president, making Obama the worst president for youth economic opportunity, according to the nonprofit that released the figure.
“Young people are suffering under this economy,” said Ashley Pratte, program officer for Young America’s Foundation, which developed the index and calculates it annually using federal statistics. “They’re still living in their parent’s basements, unable to find full-time jobs that pay them what they need in order to pay back their debt.”
Eliana Johnson writes: GOP senator Tom Coburn hinted on Sunday that Republicans will give in to Democratic demands in the upcoming negotiations on the debt ceiling because the two parties have come to see eye-to-eye on the issue. “The reason we’re in trouble on deficits and debt is not because we didn’t agree but because we did. We agreed to spend $740 billion we didn’t have last year,” he said. “The story coming out of Washington is we don’t get along. We get along just fine with the status quo of the government being ineffective and inefficient.”
The October agreement to end the government shutdown raised the debt ceiling until February 7. The White House has said that it will not negotiate over the debt limit, and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is calling on lawmakers to raise it in advance of the February deadline.
Coburn also suggested that the issue has become a losing one politically for Republicans. ”The American people don’t believe we have a debt ceiling because we always increase it,” he said.
No need for lectures from a debt-saddled president
Charles Hurt reports: In the seven years since President Obama voted as a U.S. senator not to raise the federal debt ceiling any higher, he and his government cronies have piled up $7 trillion in crazy new spending that even our grandchildren have little hope of ever paying off.
We citizens signed no document assuming responsibility for this unthinkable spending binge. We never co-signed any trillion-dollar loans.
Yet as reckless and inexcusable as this crowd’s behavior has been, we never missed a payment. We just keep on paying the bills and these people just keep on racking up crazy debt.
Anyone caught failing or refusing to continue paying the bills — no matter how strongly they object to them — has been fined, kicked out of their homes, imprisoned or worse.
Still, Mr. Obama and his government cronies have gone flat broke, yet again, using our credit. And like drug-addled little punks, they have come home — stinking and drunk in the night — and are now pounding on the windows demanding one more loan. They are at the height of their drug-fueled binge and they’ve just got to keep it rolling.
Seven years ago, when then-Sen. Barack Obama objected to raising the debt ceiling, he said that merely bumping up against the debt ceiling was “a sign of leadership failure.”
“It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies,” he intoned, senatorially.
President Barack Obama has been outspoken that he wants a “clean,” no-strings-attached bill to raise the federal government’s borrowing ability.
But as the date on which the U.S. will hit the current limit approaches and Republican and Democrat legislators start last-minute negotiations, Nick Gillespie lays out three reasons why the only good debt deal is a dirty deal – one that ties any increase in borrowing capacity to specific cuts in future spending. Read the rest of this entry »
Call it the new China Syndrome: Although Asia’s biggest economy is slowing down markedly, credit continues to surge. Dead-end projects and dying industries are sucking up an ever-larger portion of new credit, while more productive borrowers are starved for funds.
Nowhere is this more evident than in China’s shadow banking sector, the non-bank financiers that have pumped credit into the economy at a spectacular rate. Trust companies – firms that sell investment products to Chinese savers and use the proceeds to make loans or buy other types of assets – have posted the fastest growth.
A Reuters examination of proprietary data shows that as little as half of trust loans issued in 2012 were used to finance current economic activity, such as a new investment project or increased production at an existing factory.
The other half may have been used for refinancing old debt that funded past projects but is…
View original post 1,599 more words
Standard and Poor’s sees a high risk that Spain, Italy, Portugal and France will not be able to carry through necessary reforms as the unemployed become less willing to put up with austerity, S&P’s Germany head Torsten Hinrichs told a newspaper.
“The high unemployment in Spain, Italy and France is socially explosive,” Hinrichs was quoted as saying in Monday’s Neue Osnabrcker Zeitung.
“There has to be a social consensus for saving measures. High unemployment … does not help.”
Hinrichs said the people of Spain and Portugal had already proven they were willing to bear with austerity measures, but “this cannot continue forever”.
In Italy, there was the further danger that “a new government may not be strong enough for the still necessary reforms to strengthen growth,” he said.
Hinrichs said S&P still rated Germany as a triple A with stable outlook and did not see any reason for concern: “It is one of the few AAA and stable countries that we still have in Europe”.
The weak profitability of the banking sector due to the profusion of banks was the only problem in Germany, he said, although he saw positive changes in the sector in terms of equity capital and refinancing.