Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
US: US will go bankrupt, soon.
  • Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% of Likely Voters believe the federal government will go bankrupt and be unable to pay its debt before the federal budget is balanced. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and think it's more likely that the federal budget will be balanced first. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

  • 56 Replies sorted by
  • and in other news, grass is green.

  • Big advantage is that question moved in more practical plane. Not if. But when.

  • if Barry gets his way and we go $6 Trillion more in debt with nothing to show for it like the $5+Trillion he already racked up, I'm guessing sooner than later. Within 5 years?

  • Rasmussen is a right-wing pollster which always comes up with results favoring Republican points of view and Republican talking points. They had John McCain/Palin winning in 2008.


    The rise in spending under Obama is far less than occurred under Ronald Reagan and George Bush. It was also Bush II who inherited a balanced budget but managed to create a huge increase in the deficit by cutting trillions in taxes, starting two or three unfunded wars, creating a new unpaid for Medicare drug benefit and whose vice-president proclaimed that "deficits don't matter" and that tax-cuts for the top 1% are "our due".

    But of course, it's all "Barry's" fault.

  • 9 to almost 16 trillion dollars in national deficit has got to be some kind of record. he spent more in 3 years than GWB did in 8 so I don't know where you got your numbers.

  • @johnnymossville

    Here's what it looks like, annualized, for those concerned with reality, rather than myth. Note here that Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit from Bush, before he even took office, and that apart from the "stimulus" which was mostly tax cuts, he's the most fiscally "conservative" president in years, in terms of the rise in spending. The deficits are largely a factor of the wars Bush started, the Bush tax cuts, and the Depression. They'd be present no matter who was president, including McCain.

    483 x 350 - 79K
  • @JRD There's enough fault to go around. As much as I hate Obama this is not his mess alone. It's been snowballing for a long time.

    I agree that the question should be when as opposed to if. The next big question is "What to do then?". I talked to a young photographer last year and told him to take pictures and keep notes because this is history on a rampage,

  • @peternap

    I'd blame Obama as well, but for doing the opposite: we need far more stimulus at this point, because the continued Depression will actually increase future deficits.

    As for the "bankruptcy" question, folks on the right have been predicting this outcome since the 19th century. Note that Japan has a far higher debt to GDP ratio then we do, but can borrow long-term at under 1%.

    Our thinking about money appears to be all wrong -- sovereign debt can't be viewed the same way we see commercial debt. I'd refer you to the work of Jamie Galbraith, for another perspective. You may not accept his arguments, but the orthodox view is not the only one.

  • @jrd maybe so. That's over my head.

    I see farmers unable to break even, more and more small business owners with less and less work, people with under water houses and more foreclosures than I've ever seen. I'm lucky. I own my farm and another home, all my vehicles and equipment are paid for. My total debt is under ten thousand....but the rest of the country seems to be on the verge of bankruptcy.

    So the country may not go bankrupt, but it sure looks like everyone in it may. Just my ground level observation.

  • I'm a contrarian. If 51% believe it, prolly it won't happen... for now.

  • I really get tired of people blaming it on Obama I got no love of republicans or democrats they both suck at the ambrosia filled tits of the rich. Until the US government can no longer be unduly motivated by those with money the little guy is screwed. Americans for years worked hard for a balance between work and living to create a quality of life the envy of most of the world and it's all being thrown away by greedy international corporations and the politicians they bought the race to the bottom.

  • Sometimes I just can't believe the way folks in this country thinks. Where did all this hate for Obama come from? What did he do to this country to make people loathe him so much? He inherited a pile of crap from the former administration yet all the blame came down upon him within the first 90 days. No man or woman in his position could have dug us out of this pit. Why is it people can't see how much of a surplus this country was in when Clinton left the presidency and how within the first 6 months of George's admin we fell so far in the hole (and fall we did). When it comes to Obama it's not a Democrat vs Republican or a black vs white thing for is what it is. But much unwarranted hate.

    I guess if he decided to wage an illegal war on some poor nation putting us further and further into debt he might be worshipped and loved like his predecessor? Nah...

  • The only problem I see is that we couldn't get a big enough stimulus. The amount they went for was based on early estimates of the depth of the recession, but they were wrong and it was much deeper than they anticipated. No matter, things have actually turned around. Manufacturing is up. Private sector job growth is up. The only thing that didn't happen was enough money to help keep the public sector going. If not for Republican obstruction, Obama would've had this country all the way back!!!

    The Republicans are funny, cuz they made sure to block any Public Sector assistance, but during Republican presidencies they spent their way out of recessions with PUBLIC sector spending at very hgh levels, but whenever a Democrat is in the Oval Office they block any Public Sector spending. Go look up what Reagan and Bush spent on Discretionary Spending verses Obama. Spending is actually DOWN under Obama. The lies just continue. The US is actually going to experience growth once Obama is re-elected and they can't block his US investment in infrastructure, education and research and development.

  • The reason debt increased is Obama tax cuts. He's no big spender, contrary to right wing garbage. Here's a clip from the WSJ, the right wing version of the Rosetta Stone.

    320 x 188 - 17K
  • @brianluce, you're right. They also keep saying Obama raised taxes, which is a lie, cuz he has cut taxes! Spending has flatlined during Obama's presidency and the private sector has created more jobs under him than during the entire Bush 8 years.

  • It is very interesting to see how similar things induce democrats-republicans, left-right discussion.

    Again. Simple solutions do not work. Problem is not in less or more spending. As for difference between parties, in core things they are the same, with same sponsors. So, who cares?

  • @Vitaliy Of course that means nothing about the veracity of the belief. 37% of Americans can't find America on a map...of America!

  • All I know is that right now if you think the Republicans have the right solution to our problems you don't know what is really going on here. No one party has it all right and no left or right only approach can work, but I do know that Obama is more a centrist than a lefty and he tried to work in the middle but the Republicans refused to do anything just so they could regain power. If you take a deep look at what the Republicans did during the Bush years and what they want to do if they regain full power, you'd see that it is a disaster in terms of where they'd take this country.

    Underneath everything there are more problems with both parties being bought by the corporate entities but it would be worse if the Republicans have more power cuz they are completely controlled by the Corporations and do their bidding to a destructive degree. The fact that Glass-Steagall was attacked starting with Reagan and finished off by Clinton and the Republicans was a sad day for the worlds economy. However, right now it's the Democrats who are actually looking out for the common man despite still having ties to Wall Street. The Financial Reforms they want to enact would help to protect and stabilize the financial system again as it was for decades under Glass-Steagall, that is if they don't let the Republicans and Wall Street water it down too much.

  • Again. Simple solutions do not work. Problem is not in less or more spending. As for difference between parties, in core things they are the same, with same sponsors. So, who cares?

    This isn't true. I hear this every year of an election. That both sides are the same. Let's see the hands of people who think Al Gore would've invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. And where would our economy be without this?

  • @jrd, since random internet graphs now "prove" stuff, here's one that I found that "proves" he did increase the deficit:


    You just can't trust what you are told by either side. I don't care for any of those in our government, including Obama and Romney. They care more about themselves than the citizens who they should be working for.

  • @svart

    Bush II doubled the national debt in his 8 years, from about $5 trillion to about $10 trillion, despite the fact that he inherited a budget surplus from Clinton. In other words, in 8 years, Bush doubled a deficit which had taken more than the prior 200 years to accumulate.

    The first "Obama deficit" in 2009 (the first red line) is actually Bush's budget, and Bush's deficit. While Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton, Obama inherited Bush's $1.2 trillion deficit, based on Bush's budget for 2009. Obama had nothing to do with it -- a president coming into office in 2009 doesn't set the 2009 budget. The previous president does.

    While it's true deficits have been very large under Obama, GROWTH of government spending under Obama has been much lower than other recent presidents. He is indeed running high deficits, but this the baseline economy he inherited from Bush: he inherited Bush's wars, Bush's tax cuts, and Bush's Depression. There's no way to clear that stuff from the balance sheet.

    You can hardly expect Obama to be running a $250 billion deficit, when he inherited an economy running on a $1+ trillion deficit, courtesy of George Bush, and in the middle of a Depression, no less. But, given that figure, his spending increases per capita are far, far lower than those of Reagan and Bush.

  • @jrd

    Bush II doubled the national debt in his 8 years, from about $5 trillion to about $10 trillion,

    Can you please try to remember current debt and how much it is different from $10 trillion?

    when he inherited an economy running on a $1+ trillion deficit

    May be you also try to look into older blog posts to check current one?

    Every time I see this Bush vs Obama thing I see how effectively mass media produce model of the world in many heads.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    I don't follow you. You'll need to more specific, if you want me to pursue the argument. But maybe it's better just to drop it....

  • @jrd

    I am very specific. As simple facts and numbers show lack of foundation for your position.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    Sorry, but saying that my numbers are wrong or lack foundation isn't enough, on its own, to persuade me of that fact. But maybe it's time to move on.