Obama's borrowing tops World War Two's

Writes the Weekly Standard:

President Obama repeatedly insists that the debt ceiling must be raised by at least $2.4 trillion. Why this particular amount, rather than, say, an even $1 trillion or $2 trillion? Because $2.4 trillion is Obama’s estimate for what it would take to get him through the next election without needing to deal with another debt ceiling battle. In other words, $2.4 trillion is a politically generated figure.

 

 

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Besides you not writing anything in support of the headline, one would also have to take in account that according to the government's official CPI site, $1 in 1945 has the same buying power as $12.54 today. So, Obama is only asking for $192 billion, if you are going to make that comparison.

    Also, commentators on Beyond the Beltway said that the debt's percentage of GDP was twice as much in 1945 as it is now, but we defeated the Nazis.

    Getting to the point you quoted, you never said what benefit there would be in rerunning this drama a couple of more times before the election. At least the Weekly Standard blogger (and it was a blogger) was looking forward to forcing Obama to explain the spending or see what happens if the deadlines pass. On the other hand, Obama and some in the Senate want to tackle the problem.

    Also consider the snake oil of the House's balanced budget amendment. Given the deflation of the money supply in 2008 [during the Bush Administration] when all the funny money (derivatives and the like) became worthless, and people still flock to the US$ despite the supposed effect of the deficit, so that interest rates are 0, that would have resulted in 1929 style disaster.

    I also mentioned elsewhere that the Illinois Constitution mandates a balanced budget. How's that working?

  • Jack, if you would have followed the link you would have seen: "It’s hard to conceptualize sums as vast as $2,400,000,000,000.00 in newly borrowed money, new deficit spending, and new debt. How much, really, is it? Well, even after adjusting for inflation, it’s about the same amount of money that we borrowed to fight World War II."

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    I see that now, and also note that you didn't quote it earlier. Also, since he said adjusted for inflation, I'll retract the $192 billion remark.

    Of course, that still raises the points whether you were trying to adopt or comment on his position, or just driving traffic via a link. Also, whether you were adopting his position on why we should rerun the drama.

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • google-site-verification: googlefdc32e3d5108044f.html
  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Monthly Archives

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement:
  • Fresh Chicago News