digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

U.S. government fast approaching its current $8.965 trillion credit limit

reuters.com — And YOU, your children, and grandchildren are going to pay it back for them unless we do something! They are selling us out with money that doesn't exist. They take the short way out and make the next 5 generations pay for it. Cut up those F$%# credit cards already Washington!!! (Vote Ron Paul)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • shdspart, on 10/23/2007, -1/+90That $30,000 for every man, woman and child.
    • JamesWilson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+71Well they can just print more money, right?

      /sarc
      • johnmalc, on 10/10/2007, -13/+19I was about to Digg this article until I saw the Ron Paul tag. Seriously getting sick of it.
        • leroyrich240, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14Oh get over it and vote for him already. (Hee hee!)
        • Gimpishi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Seriously getting sick of what? Sick of your fellow countrymen supporting a candidate that represents them and their (your) constitution? So in the name of being non-conformist (to Ron Paul supporting) you decide not to digg the story...
          • AxeSwinger, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7No, for the absolute lemming like quality that most R. Paul supporters seem to exhibit. He's not a messiah and even as president he would be hamstrung since he would have no power to repel laws and he would be beholden to the congress to get his agenda on the roster. He's admirable in that he speaks his mind and votes his conscious but that's about it we had the type of gov't he wants and what did we get? The depression.
          • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3ron paul's tears cure cancer. the only problem is that ron paul never cries.
      • known, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They can also sell real estate property.
    • fishbert, on 10/10/2007, -0/+48My limit's only $10,000.
      Amex is a bunch of cheap bastards!
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1am I getting a preferred rate?
    • 1337Einstein, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Wow, apparently I'm actually worth something.
      • Carsonauto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26Yeah. Debt.
      • ElectricC0wb0y, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Your blood, sweat, and labor fuels the machine that is our government.
    • Pile, on 10/10/2007, -20/+4can we please stop with the ron paul hawking? learn more about the libertarian utopia:

      http://www.bsalert.com/news/2084/BSAlert_Show_4_-_ ...
    • teaBagger, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8lawl usa - you are *****
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Luckily, I come from a country which has a surplus of over $60,000 per capita so, I'm laughing all the way to the bank...
      • evlpanda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"EarlOfLade
        A male from the United States who joined Digg on May 8th, 2007"
        -Is this related to that Parallel Universes stuff going around last week, or are you really that geographically challenged?
    • shakestheclown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6How are we supposed to fund our Forever Wars on Terror and Drugs without money?

      Pay your shares, assholes!
      • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Don't forget the War on Poverty! How much have we spent on that over the past 50 years? 20 Trillion?
        • wtfpwned98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Umm, poverty won a long time ago.
    • danconia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This is only if you go by the government's accounting figures. Unfortunately their numbers tend to be "pro-government", shall I say?

      You better believe we owe a lot more than 9 trillion.
    • andrgo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Wow, my little chunk could have paid for my ENTIRE college education! Which by the way, I got $0 from FAFSA and the gov't scholarships I applied for - even though I only make $6,000/yr and my parents are on the very low end of being 'middle class'.

      Thanks George.
      Thanks Republicans.
      • Azur3us, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1If you only make 6000/yr, why the hell are you wasting your time on the computer when you could be making more money? If you only make 6k, why do you even HAVE a computer?
        • 0firefly0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10He was also going to college at the time, asswipe.
        • S1ngular1ty1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Obviously he is attending school and working part time. God you are an idiot.
        • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1If we truly couldn't afford it, then why doesn't he work full time and go to college part time. You know like most people do that can't afford it?
        • msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Because you'll amass more debt taking 6-8 years to finish a degree than just working part time and finishing in 4 and starting a better paying job to pay back the loans. Educational loan interest is tax deductible, and if you're going to college for a useful degree, you'll walk out making 10x more afterwards.
      • DebbilsAdvocate, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Yeah, because Democrats don't spend ANY money. Hey *****, Democrats voted almost unanimously to extend the limit from 9 to 10 trillion. If you paid more than $5 for college you got ripped off, because you're still a moron.
      • thepotatoman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Whats with all the anger and name calling? Surely we can point out each other's mistakes without resorting to insults.
    • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1But the Republicans don't want all Americans to have fully tax funded health care. What twisted demons they are.
    • mastertop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And that's about 2000$ interest per year per person... Absolutely incredible. Imagine what USA could do with 2000$ per person more...
  • BelXul, on 11/04/2007, -1/+137I hate to have to point out the bad news, but the debt limit has been raised recently. From the article: "The Senate voted 53-42 to raise the debt ceiling to $9.815 trillion" and " 'Increasing the debt limit is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the United States of America,' said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley"

    Okay, so if I'm reading this Senator correctly, he's saying that in order for our money to be worth anything, we have to dig ourselves DEEPER into debt?! No, I don't think so!
    • redfox2600, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Well according to this
      http://www.digg.com/videos_music/How_our_financial ...
      for there to be money there must be debt
      • JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16For there to be fiat money there must be consumer debt. That doesn't mean there has to be government debt, or even that money has to be backed by debt. There isn't any reason we can't be using stock certificates or certificates redeemable in crude oil, gold, silver, bushels of corn, acres of land, etc. as a medium of exchange.
    • cephelo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12True. However, that doesn't mean our debt has to be this high, or that our spending has to be this far out of control. Reducing taxes and reducing spending would leave more money in the private sector where it is more likely to be invested in things that actually yield positive economic results. While the government can keep spending billions on a failed project, the private sector cannot. Once something fails, the funds are moved to find ventures the are cash-positive, thus providing long term jobs and long term taxable income.
    • Hardc0r3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Far be it from me to defend Grassley's comment but what he is saying is they needed to raise the debt limit in order to pay for the things they've already promised to pay for. His statement doesn't mean that more debt equals more monetary stability.
    • barc0001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh don't worry. At the rate the US is going that extension will only last another 6-9 months. Then you'll be right at the red line again.
  • rpi22, on 11/04/2007, -12/+132And people wonder why the canadian dollar is worth more the the usd?
    • 3tcp, on 11/04/2007, -4/+18Exchange rates are determined by money supply and demand. Deficit spending does not affect either unless money supply is being adjusted to facilitate deficit spending (unlikely).
      • fishbert, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Fine, be that way. Ruin the joke.
      • Bilabrin, on 11/04/2007, -1/+7What do you mean unlikely? Of course the money supply is being adjusted. Not necessarily FOR deficit spending but that is the result. The federal reserve is priting it to reduce debt to foriegn nations. Also it reduces my debts as well as my salary and my money in the bank. That's why I dont save money. We need to return to hard currency.
        • sp3rmizoid, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1What do you mean "you don't save money"?
          I save extra money in an ING account.
          I'm stupid?
      • ladbroke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You realize that's until we default on our debts, right? If our money isn't worth enough to pay for what we owe, demand for American Dollars goes down, then so does the value of our dollars. Then we have to dig ourselves out of a much, much deeper hole. Read Paul Krugman's writings on debt, OIF, and the baby-boomer bomb.
    • afflusso, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Who is wondering why?
    • orlyfactor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No one is wondering...
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Who cares.
      • maverex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2who cares about your worthless dollar?
      • mountaincable, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Go Canadian Economy!
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No I mean, who cares because it won't stay that way forever.
  • tehbishop, on 10/10/2007, -40/+18Dugg for Ron Paul inserted in there.
    • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6Interestingly I burried it for the same reason.
    • untzboy, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3why the ***** would i vote republican?
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Why would anyone vote because of the party instead of the individual?
  • Psykus2, on 10/23/2007, -62/+130Buried for the Ron Paul message inserted into the headline. Seriously, do it in the comments.
    • Rukaribe, on 10/10/2007, -20/+10Agreed.
    • truegodofwar, on 10/23/2007, -4/+15Ron Paul!
    • asteron, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I'm glad I'm not the only one to do that.
      Submitters who use the link description to insert their own opinions are annoying.
    • v0lrath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I agree and I support Ron Paul.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/23/2007, -39/+158"(Vote Ron Paul)"
    I was about to digg this until you brought in a political candidate. Just state the facts, and let people make their own decisions from it.
    • untzboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2i concur

      or don't bring up politics at all
    • danconia, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5That you should vote for Ron Paul IS A FACT!
    • swiftekho, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4When you let people make their own decisions you get Bush.
      • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2no when stupid people have decisions made for them by the tv you get bush
  • BlackOp, on 11/04/2007, -1/+20So are they just gonna keep raising the limit forever? What happens if they stop?
    • Scynet, on 11/04/2007, -0/+6Down. Down to the ground in ashes.
      • Scynet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually, here's your answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_%28finance%29
        • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Not true. That's for the common consumer.

          The US debt is mythical - if it were a real traditional debt, they wouldn't be able to extend it to save themselves.

          Plus if they don't pay it back, who's gonna collect? No one.

          So it's money we owe that.. we don't HAVE to pay back.
          • Scynet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1""We have no choice but to approve it. If we fail to raise the debt ceiling soon, the U.S. Treasury will default for the first time in its history," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus"

            http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.asp ...

            I'm not going to believe your word over the chairman of the esnate finance committee without some serious proof, sorry,
        • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0*****. When the Chinese start knocking on your door, what are you going to do?
          Declare War?
    • wotcher, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4More importantly, what happens if they do NOT stop?
    • Hardc0r3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If they stop raising the limit and don't stop their spending then they'll run out of money, which isn't likely to happen because it's so easy for them to just vote to raise the limit.
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or they can just borrow more from other countries.
  • senorcool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Just curious about what happens if they go over it?
    • 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25They have to pass a bill to raise the limit. Horray for congress!
    • luskin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Our creditors take back what we spent the money on. Hopefully they take Iraq first.
  • aslave2thegrind, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Government shutdown...would have happened on Monday if they hadn't extended the limit. Procrastination, cha cha cha.
    Inflation...cha cha cha.
    • tunapez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I like to dance, but are we doing the cha cha or the Danse Macabre?
      Waning confidence...cha cha cha.
      Falling credit rating...cha cha cha.
    • jessehadden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0In other words... "Government shutdown: what would have happened Monday if we had a Republican Congress and a Democrat President." It saddens me that the only party in this duopoly with any intestinal fortitude is also arguably the most evil political party in human history.
  • Eleo, on 11/04/2007, -13/+38Ron Paul this, Ron Paul that.
  • cambrown99, on 11/04/2007, -22/+28I just gave $10 to Ron Paul's campaign. Money given to good hands.

    btw, they were trying to raise $500,000 by tomorrow's deadline, and right now they are about $75,000 away from reaching $1 million! Go Ron!
    • neiltc13, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5Screw giving money to political parties or candidates. If you really, really want to see your money make a difference, give it to an honest charity.
      • DivineLackey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Was that an Oxymoron? Or are you just a moron?
    • untzboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8is this cash he's getting, or is everyone just using their credit cards?
    • endlessrayne, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4and now www.ronpaul2008.com is down. coincidence?
  • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Our debt is paid for by other countries. It has been that way for decades. At some point, other countries just own us.
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7At some point? Guess you're not up on the China news huh?
      • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Well, China is on their way, but they aren't there yet. If nothing changes in the next 10 years they most certainly will. There is still time for correction. If we can actually get to double-digit interest rates without causing a depression, the problem can be corrected. It's not even so much a government spending problem (although that's part of it, for sure) as it is a savings rate problem.
  • minorthreat, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8Im so constitutional, I eat Ron Paul's for breakfast
    • untzboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4i'm so liberal, i dont eat breakfast!

      i can never decide what i want.
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Can't decide > having it decided for you. At least if you can't decide that means you have a choice.
  • kingsaliva, on 11/04/2007, -0/+24Dont forget the 59.1 trillion in future unfunded liabilities. (USA TODAY)
  • 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13The only way to stop deficit spending is
    A) Strong third parties that will check the earmarking and vote-buying of the big 2
    B) A democrat controlled white house and a republican controlled congress (the other way doesn't work, look at bush & pelosi)
    C) Voters that punish incumbents who use federal money to fund special interests instead of investments in public goods by voting them out of office.
    • untzboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3or putting credit cards into extinction.
    • Zap2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12) No, a Democrat controlled Congress and white house...the republicans had there turn from '00-'04
  • Tarantulus, on 10/20/2007, -2/+23congratulations to the american public, you've managed to develop taking it up the backside into a fine art form..
  • unorginalityftw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I have to whistle at the number and then wonder how one can spend that much, then I remember the war and all.
    • JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Don't forget that social security and medicare payments cost more every year than the war.

      Everyone wants to blame the other party, so they can keep their own spending projects by eliminating the other guy's. You know what? You're both the problem. Cut all spending. The end.
    • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We started in debt when we assumed the debt of the Confederation. We've always had debt, and never stopped building it.
    • unorginalityftw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, you have your points. Hence the "and all" part of my comment. I left it open.
  • CarzorStelatis, on 10/10/2007, -17/+24Can we please have political stories on Digg without turning them into Ron Paul spam? Buried.
    • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10It's not spam.

      It's pointing out to you a solution. But you, along with everyone else, see it as an inconvenience, will ignore it, and then proceed to vote in some other goon who doesn't do ***** to fix anything.
      • 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2The story and headline is for the news. The comments are the place for the bias. If you think putting his name in the headline of every story on the front page is going to get people to vote for him then you're an idiot. People don't vote for the name they see the most they vote for the candidate with the most persuasive argument. The people who vote for the ones with the best hair don't visit digg.
        • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The headline is: "U.S. government fast approaching its current $8.965 trillion credit limit."

          Ron Paul is not mentioned in that. It is mentioned in the about, which is typed up by a person, just like you. You cannot expect non-biased from an individual who is not professionally employed.
    • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I like to see people recognize a solution instead of endlessly bleating out the problems. Ron Paul is an interesting man, and I see nothing wrong with mentioning his name.
  • nixfu, on 11/04/2007, -8/+21QUIZ:

    You are a true American who understands what real freedom is based on and knows the constitution and especially the 10th amendment if your answer to this problem is:

    A) Raise taxes allegedly to pay down the debt, but instead spend the money on socialist utopia wasteful misguided wealth redistribution programs which help keep people sucking on the big government tit

    B) Stop wasting money on any federal government programs not specifically mentioned in the constitution...which is the common defense and what ever the minimum amount is needed to run the 3 basic government branches themselves. AKA..go back to what this country was intended to be and was all the way up until before WW2.


    • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Stop the Ron Paul spam! You are talking like him. Stop it with your lies.
    • tomis, on 11/04/2007, -0/+15C) Cut spending by deleting bureaucracy and paranoia programs like Homeland Security and other worthless projects which pull money away from the local & state level. There's no need to kill socially responsible services in the process of killing socially irresponsible ones.
      • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He is talking about Constitutional guidelines. What is all this "social responsible" ***** you are wailing on about?
    • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Promote the General Welfare. And once you go there nixfu the whole ball of wax changes. Now do you side with Madison or Hamilton? Wow, the "way" the country was intended to be goes back a bit farther than WWII it seems.
    • jessehadden, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I have so far been a Ron Paul supporter, but you may be opening my eyes up to his myopia. The social services offered by the US government are pretty much the only demonstratively successful programs our government does.
      • phenry50BMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There is not one successful social service run by this government if you consider efficiency and cost effective as your benchmarks for success.
        • digsig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How can you measure cost effectiveness for a social service? Compared to what?
      • hugh8jass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Most social services are provided to the people by state and local governments, at the federal level it's all about bureaucracy.
        That's Ron's point, keep these programs closer to the people where they can actually be effective.
        When the federal government takes your money in the name of social services, it is usurping power granted to the states by the constitution.
  • daradib, on 10/20/2007, -0/+28Imagine what we could do with 9 trillion dollars.
    • dsmx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It will probably be wasted on more arms and bullets for the war in iraq, rather than spending it on the US people like it has always beeen since world war 2.
      • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1we have been spending money on arms more and more ever since WWII. listen to president Eisenhower's farewell address. the only thing that every president has in common with all the other after WWII is that they sent troops in somewhere on some level (from small attacks to all out war). like it or not its what keeps this country moving.
    • macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8We don't have to imagine, we have already spent it... I guess 9 trillion isn't what it use to be because I certainly don't see where it went... oh yeah, most of it is INTEREST because we just make the minimum payments.
    • Sandurz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3An enormous golden fountain that spews Canada Dry in every town square.

      A metric ton of Heath Bar ice cream.

      Six hundred thousand chimichangas from Main Street in Disneyland.

      That's what we could do.

      Four million times over.
    • PimpinOnWelfare, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"two chicks at the same time"
  • Sogui, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6"(Vote Ron Paul)"...

    And I was so close to Digging you too...
  • lazerus9, on 10/23/2007, -5/+35OK! Attention Government Workers! Clean out your desks, turn off the computers, switch off the lights, lock the door's and go home. We don't need you! We can take care of ourselves just fine. No really!! Go home! I'm not kidding! Who needs you? You invade our privacy! Steal our money! Steal our property! Dumb down our kids in your schools! Go Home! Better Yet! Your Fired!!!
    • TrutherHunter, on 11/04/2007, -12/+6Yeah who tho needs water, sanitation, power, fire departments, police, public education and public transportation.
      • TrutherHunter, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1If you want anarchy move to some 3rd world country see how you like it ***** running through the streets contaminating the water kid becoming slave labor etc.
        • lazerus9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If you want Social Fascism move to Russia! Are you actually defending the Public School System?
          Do you think that people can not provide their own water and food?
          Like I said "Your Fired"! Go Home!!!! What's worse? ***** running through the streets! Or all of the ***** flowing out of Washington? I'll take Freedom over what you call security any day!!
      • 3tcp, on 11/04/2007, -0/+11All of that stuff is mostly funded by the state and local communities. Your state income tax, state sales tax and property taxes pay for that. Your federal income tax pays for the federal bureaucracies, military, corporate subsidies, foreign aid and your every day pork-barrel spending.
        • TrutherHunter, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0So you wanna split America into 51 countries thats great till each little country decides to invades its neighbor.
          • nixfu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5yes...thats how it is supposed to be. you dont like it, go to china
          • 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No I'm stating a fact, that is actually how it works. You're simply wrong if you believe federal income taxes pay for local services. The point was that the services that maintain our way of life are provided by a more decentralized system of government than the national government.
            You may be too lazy to focus on politics at anything less than the national level but state and local government are more efficient at allocating resources and provide nearly all of the public services that we use on a daily basis.
      • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5All that *****, except police, is already private in my community. Including power, water, sanitation, fire department AND ambulance service. Quit with your fear and paranoia that nobody but the guberment can do these things.
    • untzboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2and mail, mail is a gov't business. WE'RE ON UR LAUN, OWNING UR MALEBOX
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5FedEx & UPS & DHL?
      • fuzzywzhe, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0> and mail, mail is a gov't business.

        Oh heavens no! What will I do now that I don't get my mailbox stuffed with junkmail that I throw away immediately since I pay all my bills online?

        The truth is, there isn't a single Federal government "service" I need.
    • gharding, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4HAHAAHHAHA. Like you can fire government employees.
      • AgentAce, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2It happens every few days in my city. Just Google "SRS."
  • codyg1985, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8And that's why our congress voted to raise the debt limit. Forward thinking folks they are!
  • SheilaNoya, on 11/04/2007, -3/+14The Democratic candidates have all promised to re-instate Bill Clinton's old PayGo plan (pay as you go) so we can no longer spend more than we bring in. The PayGo plan worked extremely well, but the Republicans trashed it as soon as Bush became president. Are any of the current Repuiblican candidates (including Ron Paul) promising to put PayGo back in force?
    • 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3PayGo is only as good as the things that are being payed for. All signs indicate that the major presidential candidates (except maybe obama) would raise taxes to fund a surveillance society, long-term stay in Iraq and favors for the industries and organizations that support them whether that is big business, health care industry or labor unions.
      • UpBeforeSunrise, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0..
      • JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What makes you think Obama would be any different? He's practically the Democratic Fred Thompson.
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6How can people support Obama? That jackass was saying that he'd invade Pakistan if he was president!

        Obama president = WW3.
    • macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget and never voted to increase taxes. So by definition he is a PayGo without increasing the pay part.
  • Scottievm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Has this Democratic congress that was supposed to make all these big changes and stick it to the Bush administration, actually done anything yet? It seems that they just approve everything the executive branch asks for and then sit idly by waiting for another request.
    • jessehadden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The sad part is, I don't think any one of the Dem candidates actually promised anything different. They relied on their proxy-groups, like MoveOn.org, to paint the suggestion of a promise of difference... but I don't think a single one made a promise. And now, they are delivering on those promises.
  • djohnmalkovich2, on 10/10/2007, -13/+8stupid *****: how about you get serious for a moment and acknowledge Ron Paul is your only hope.
    • untzboy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2ron paul can't take action. he hates everything, his allies (other than republicans) are scarce, not to mention he would be puppetted like hell.
      • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ron Paul would drastically cut spending in ways people couldn't imagine. Take the Department of Education for example. Do you really think education should be a federal question? Of course not, but for some reason, there's a federal Department of Education, and it operates on federal dollars. Since parents want to be actively involved in their children's education, it should be a local (state) matter, and another benefit is that the federal government no longer has to pay for this particular department. The same idea could be extended elsewhere.

        In other words, there are lots of ways of cutting spending, and Ron Paul is one of those people who is very serious about getting this done.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2RP would only make things worse. He would really ruin this country.
    • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1.
  • soccerman90, on 10/23/2007, -0/+23wow, our debt has increased over 3 trillion dollars since bush came to office. Thats alot of ***** money and in tired of this goddamn government
  • floatingpoints, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"And YOU, your children, and grandchildren are going to pay it back for them unless we do something!"

    Haha, says who, and with what?
    • soccerman90, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3ill put it on my credit card
    • specs10, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Inflation, mostly. And a much smaller amount of taxes.
  • withoutashovel, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3It always amazes me to see how many people, including me, get annoyed by sensationalistic and opinionated titles with caps, cussing and/or candidate preference, but it still makes the front-page anyway. I know there must be good information in the article, but the title and details are what catches or loses the Digger's attention.
  • atbnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13So, when is the White House going to be foreclosed? Seems like someone is living beyond their means, but no one is holding them accountable.
    • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Good point but Bush isn't the Queen of England.
  • JonParker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13At least it makes the $29.95 over limit fee look trivial.
  • Crossmenjeff, on 10/23/2007, -1/+18didn't we sign up for cash back rewards? thats like 80 billion dollars worth of cash back.
    • Smight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We went for airline miles; but they had an expiration date.
  • zachshmack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16When did the Republicans become a party of big spending? At least the Democrats have the sense not to cut taxes when we're in the hole. Though, ideally, you'd want to cut taxes AND cut spending. /sigh.
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10When Neoconservatives hijacked the party.
  • etnu, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3$30,000 per person sounds bad, but when you consider that the average american household has over $20,000 in credit card debt alone it doesn't seem too terrible. Our citizens don't understand responsible borrowing, why should we expect our government to?
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Um, because we hold them to a higher standard that's why. But I agree, very few poeple in washington care about it.
      • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But we like to send "the common man" to Washington. And we don't hold them to a higher standard anyway. We know exactly what we get when we vote for them. We keep voting for the same people.
    • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Doh!! We expect elected officials to be smarter than the rest of us.
      • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You have to be joking, aren't you? Winning a ballot does not make someone wiser, or a saint. We should know this by now.
        • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well ok... Not smarter for your reasons, but smarter than your average bear.
    • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not me... Debt: $0
  • DesignEx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"And YOU, your children, and grandchildren are going to pay it back for them unless we do something!"

    I think we are going to be paying that back the rest of our lives, there is no "unless we do something", the deed is already done.
    • JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Can we at least admit, at this point, that we need to stop making it worse?
      • DesignEx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That is what I'm waiting for. I'd love to see Ron Paul in office, but I fear that truth and the constitution currently take a backseat to whatever big media wants.

        What can we do if two more puppets are selected as candidates for each party. It is sad, but if I were a betting man I'd say that is where I'd place the overwhelming odds.
    • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Unless we do something"

      - Move to Canada?
  • Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+38Dugg. Mentioning someone who HAS A PLAN TO FIX THE PROBLEM should not be frowned upon. Gravel, Kucinich or Paul. Else we're SCREWED, you politically correct monkeys!!!!
    • Bilabrin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Thank you, I was getting tired of those 5 poeple spamming "buried for mentioning Ron Paul".
      It's APT. Look it up poeple.
      • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1It's Ron Paul spam and it's getting really old, but I guess we have to endure it for a couple of months more until he disappears for good. I'll open a bottle of champagne the day he withdraws from the race.
      • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1

    • untzboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2 plan, please.
    • afflusso, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who will give us a chance to get out of debt. He'll get us out of Iraq and will use the saved money from there (and many other expenses that will be cut) and reduce the debt. The Democratic candidates will all replace the war with a costly and inefficient healthcare system, leaving us with the debt still.
  • DestroyFascism, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Hey Yank, Got a dollar I can borrow?
    • azimir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sure, but it won't buy much in Europe these days.
  • maiku00, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11who cares! just raise the cap and print more money!
    • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Worked for the Wiemar Republic didn't it? Oh wait...
  • SomaSynth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's a pretty heft credit limit, I wonder if I can get 9 Trillion on my MasterCard if I ask politely.
    • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But why would you want it at 18.5 percent interest?
      Unless you never expect to pay off the balance.
      • Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'd love it at 18.5%. Most credit cards are near 30% right now.
        • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You're ***** me. What the ***** country are you from?
  • tarentinos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Good ol' Oklahoma.
  • NeoSanity, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Buried for Ron Paul reference. Take your political agendas elsewhere you prick.
  • Julz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3thank god i don't have to pay it back.... unless New Zealand becomes part of USA somehow... all you would have to do is send over a couple of ships and planes and we would be screwed lol
    • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lucy Lawless will protect you.
      • Julz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1she already is
        • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Only trying to be knowledgeable about you country. Not trying to diss you.
    • PricklySponge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2When the ***** hits the fan here in the US, I'll come chill over in New Zeland
      • 2Deluxe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So how long ago did you move?
        • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That's crap. When the ***** hit's the fan, they'll all move to Toronto.
  • shanethetrain, on 10/20/2007, -0/+11If you expect anybody to repay this debt, then you need to do a little background research on how an economy is run. Our money USED to be backed by gold. Post 1971, it is no longer the case. Our money is indeed a form of debt and the strength of our dollar depends on our national debt vs. other countries debt. If our dollar is strong, it only means that other countries owe us more then we owe them. If our dollar is weak, it means that we owe other countries, as is the case today.
    We have been borrowing money from Russia, China, Japan, even Brazil, to fund our Energy Tour of The Middle East.
    • stupidgenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7thank god someone else took macroeconomics and actually knows how the national debt works
    • sp3rmizoid, on 11/04/2007, -0/+4So, basically, we are *****?
    • ffleming, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1But don't you see? Completely destroying the economy by reverting to an outdated system is GOOD for the country! Abolish the FDA! Market forces will correct for products that kill people. Sure, people will die at every correction (as well as those who die or are ripped off, but the market misses), but they're not upper middle class heterosexual white people, so why does it matter? Piles of corpses never hurt anyone.
      • AgentAce, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You want to abolish the Food and Drug Administration?
  • anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Nah, I ain't paying *****. Somebody else's debt. Not mine. Not the American taxpayers either. They didn't spend the money. When the U.S. goernment goes bankrupt, and the creditors descend in, they auction off their assets like any other bankrupt corporation. Heads of the corporation go to jail.
    • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5So... US Army, Navy and Air Force assets get auctioned off to Iran?
  • ItsMyWii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I just want .0000001% of that money. That's all. .0000001%.
    • sp3rmizoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4=SUM(850*77.1)
    • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You only want about $9000 ($8,965 to be exact)? I'd ask for about 0.0001% (nine million dollars).
      • AgentAce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He just wants to pay for his new 31337 G4M0R'5 RIG!!11!!oneone!1!!
  • d13f00l, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, you are going to pay in one way or another, everyone will, even if they arn't in the US. What exactly do you think money is? Our dollar is backed by public worldwide faith that the US dollar will retain it's purchasing power, and that returns on investments in our companies and government will ensure higher purchasing power in the future. Should that trust fail, your money will be worth nothing. No one would accept it as tender. Foreign countries would dump their investments, the US would print trillions of dollars to meet the debt. There would be so much money floating around it would be worth about as much as toilet paper, everyone would lose out. It's called hyperinflation and it has happened in other countries in the past. There are not enough assets to cover the debt, yet. That's why it's debt. Should the GDP fall, the debt continue to rise, and investors come knocking, everyone is in big trouble, and an nonchalant attitude of the public like that ensures the wrong people can take office, and a few people can screw over the many.
  • prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm sick of hearing "democrats caused this problem because they want to spend on social programs" and then "republicans caused this problem because Bush wanted an expensive war" blah blah blah...

    BOTH parties are to blame for this! But even more, the people are to blame for it! We have to put every representative, senator and president we elect on notice that we DEMAND they not only stop increasing our debt, but start reducing it! If the people actually started calling their senators and being vocal enough about our anger over their indescribable irresponsibility, this would stop. Instead, the vast majority of Americans don't even pay attention, much less hold officials accountable. I think any congressman or senator who voted to allow this should be impeached and if the president doesn't veto it (and of course I know he won't...) I think he should be to. This pathetic "pyramid scheme" is a way we are playing a game of bankruptcy musical chairs with our children and grandchildren. I cannot describe how much shame I feel as an American knowing that we increased the debt load on our kids by nearly a TRILLION dollars and the mainstream news isn't even reporting it because NO ONE CARES! Kindergartners know more about sound financial principles than our leadership does! These people were given the responsibility to protect our future and instead they are (with full knowledge of their actions) transferring this generations' problems to the next one. To the United States Congress, Senate and President I say: "Shame on you! You have DISGRACED your office and our nation! Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, all of you!"
  • kirstpo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The US wastes so much money. One third of the budget every year has been going to defense. The Iraq War is costing us near a trillion. Hardly any money goes to education, social services, environment, roads, bridges, healthcare, or scientific research. One missile could fund a whole college research department for a year or more. The current administration has also increased the bureaucracy which is another sink for our tax dollars. Plus the US government has to pay interest to the Fed. This is one of the reasons the Federal Reserve should not be private. Maybe 5% of the yearly budget pays interest to the Federal Reserve whom can print money as they please. Why should the US government pay interest for money they use for the benefit of the country.

    We should also stop paying the majority of our congressman and executive administration their salaries, because they're obviously not doing their job.
  • CaviMike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That's ok, GWB can buy the states back with his oil deposits in the middle east.
  • rwvalentine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1oh no, not the children again!
    maybe dems can get some kids to talk on radio about economics and how they will inherit the debt!

    soylent green is children! it's children!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.