Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am standing behind a pickup in a parking lot with a poster board that reads:
233 years for US Debt to reach 9.2 Trillion 4 years for Obama to hit 16.2. That's 1.5 Billons per month in office.

So...true?

Truth can also be false (omg, it's like dividing by zero). Obama is in charge during a recession so while the charge may be true, it presents a false problem by pretending the US economy has always been the same size and never fluctuates.

EDIT: Crap that's GNP. Hold on I'm looking XD

It would be much preferable if the US national debt were zero like it was in 1775.

Was national debt zero in 1775?

IIRC we borrowed quite a bit of money from various european banks to finance the revolution.

Well remember, your little poster board makes no mention of any other possible expenditures other than it's all obama's fault. Logic tells us they are either with-holding or twisting information.

I think the joke was that America wasn't a country in 1775, it was still a colony.

Also just realized that 1.5 billion a month per in office doesn't add up to 7 trillion dollars :/

Not even close.

I also would love to hear another strategy that he could have taken to get us out of a recession.

How exactly do you get out of recession without raising taxes or raising the national debt? I've yet to hear any credible answers at least from people Ive discussed it with in real life.

But then again the people Ive discussed it with think the trillion dollars spent on healthcare reform is somehow worse than the trillion dollars spent on the Iraq War so, theres that.

Governments need debts to survive. The only problem is when you start running a deficit when you don't need to.

All modern Nation-states of any significance in the last 400 years or so have amassed huge amounts of debts. Even the countries who are supposedly 'owed' have their own debts to pay to other countries, and banks. Debt is unavoidable for success or eventual self-reliance. Not that we have that problem.

I'm not justifying our balooning debt, but it's nothing new, nor is it the personal responsibility of any one man. It's quite amusing when people blame Obama personally for things that were already in the works before he swore in.

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
All modern Nation-states of any significance in the last 400 years or so have amassed huge amounts of debts. Even the countries who are supposedly 'owed' have their own debts to pay to other countries, and banks. Debt is unavoidable for success or eventual self-reliance. Not that we have that problem.

I'm not justifying our balooning debt, but it's nothing new, nor is it the personal responsibility of any one man. It's quite amusing when people blame Obama personally for things that were already in the works before he swore in.

I wish the average electorate in our countries was as enlightened as you are.

Dos it actually matter.

Who is going to call in bailiffs on the United States?

You'd need a heck of a long touchstaff, for starters.

AustonT wrote:I am standing behind a pickup in a parking lot with a poster board that reads:
233 years for US Debt to reach 9.2 Trillion 4 years for Obama to hit 16.2. That's 1.5 Billons per month in office.

So...true?

Well, 1.5 Billion per month for four years will total 72 billion, so I'm going to go ahead and guess that many facts have eluded the man with the bumper sticker, even beyond 3rd grade math.


EDIT: He'd actually have to spend almost 100 times that, at a rate of 145.83 billion per month in order to blow through 7 trillion.

That actually looks like some Lou Dobbs-esque math right there.

For that sign to be true he would have had to go 1.5 Billion a day for 12.8 years.

GG

Plus, the debt hit 13 trillion by the end of Bushes time in office so he's off there too for starters.

Poster board: busted

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
All modern Nation-states of any significance in the last 400 years or so have amassed huge amounts of debts.

I'd assume Norway doesn't count as a Nation-state of any significance then?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I'd assume Norway doesn't count as a Nation-state of any significance then?

I think that would be a statement they'd agree with even in Norway.

Not to offend Norway, but its a country with a population of just over 5 million with massive oil and natural gas reserves and virtually no enemies who can realistically attack it, and no real foreign interests to enforce because all of Norway's neighbors are stable and friendly. Norway also controls its economic strengths very well.

It would be sad if Norway was massively in debt when it has so many advantages other larger economies don't.

Unlike the USA, a country with massive oil and natural gas reserves and no enemies who can realistically attack it.

Unfortunately the USA wasted its wealth on massive social security and expensive public health programmes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Unlike the USA, a country with massive oil and natural gas reserves and no enemies who can realistically attack it.

Also a country with a population of 300,000,000+ people, massive (and failing) infrastructure, an economic finger in everything, and a serious macho attitude. Our economy is 30x larger than Norway's. Being smaller affords a serious advantage in being easier to manage (and Norway probably has better economic management than us to begin with).

There was an article recently about how US oil production may soon surpass Saudi Arabia in production.

The US has quite alot of oil avaliable for drilling. I believe its actually enough to supply the needs of the US and allow for exportation, so its silly that we are "dependent" on middle eastern oil.

 Grey Templar wrote:
There was an article recently about how US oil production may soon surpass Saudi Arabia in production.

The article has been going around. The problem is that the number being cited isn't just oil. It includes ethenol which the media is just equating to oil for whatever reason.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
There was an article recently about how US oil production may soon surpass Saudi Arabia in production.

The article has been going around. The problem is that the number being cited isn't just oil. It includes ethenol which the media is just equating to oil for whatever reason.

Because people think Ethenol will solve our problems

Well its not a lie that US oil production is on the rise, but it only gets as high as that article (I mean the study the articles are based on) claims when you add ethenol in

Kilkrazy wrote:Unlike the USA, a country with massive oil and natural gas reserves and no enemies who can realistically attack it.

Unfortunately the USA wasted its wealth on massive social security and expensive public health programmes.

I believe Norway has a single-payer health care system like Canada, and they definitely have a state-run pension system.

I think what you really mean to say is: "Unfortunately the USA wasted its wealth on inefficient privatization where only a select few earn a profit at the expense of the taxpayers, allowed its own production industry to collapse thanks to deregulation, and then put itself in a position where taxes are politically impossible to raise despite the massive bill coming due for all the army toys it bought."

LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
There was an article recently about how US oil production may soon surpass Saudi Arabia in production.

The article has been going around. The problem is that the number being cited isn't just oil. It includes ethenol which the media is just equating to oil for whatever reason.

Which is just super, because ethanol is so inefficient that you literally have to starve to death in order to produce enough ethanol, and then import food for a net cost that is greater than the otherwise standard cost of growing food and importing oil. Few things make me loathe hippies more than the ethanol "solution".

If it wasn't true, why is it written on a poster?

Checkmate Obamadrones!

 Grey Templar wrote:

IIRC we borrowed quite a bit of money from various european banks to finance the revolution.

IIRC, we also let France and Germany and most other countries off the hook with what we let them borrow from us in post-WW2 rebuilding efforts, but in turn they have not let us off the hook for money that we borrowed from them... Obviously they don't follow the "I borrowed from you, you borrowed from me, so we're all square then" logic that many american (and possibly around the world?) friends do.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Unlike the USA, a country with massive oil and natural gas reserves and no enemies who can realistically attack it.

Unfortunately the USA wasted its wealth on massive social security and expensive public health programmes.

I believe Norway has a single-payer health care system like Canada, and they definitely have a state-run pension system.

That's the joke.jpg?