150 Days: Treasury Says Debt Has Been Frozen at $18,112,975,000,000

The portion of the federal debt that is subject to a legal limit set by Congress closed Monday, August 10, at $18,112,975,000,000, according to the latest Daily Treasury Statement, which was published at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday.

That, according to the Treasury's statements, makes 150 straight days the debt subject to the limit has been frozen at $18,112,975,000,000.

$18,112,975,000,000 is about $25 million below the current legal debt limit of $18,113,000,080,959.35.

snip...

150 Days: Treasury Says Debt Has Been Frozen at $18,112,975,000,000


It's been reduced to a Never Mind.

Is there a point to this?

mmi said:

Is there a point to this?

Click to expand...

Other than the manipulation itself, are we still paying our bills? The interest? etc.

It's not stopping this clock:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I'm paying very little attention to this cuz I figure that's appropriate.

That material relates to the debt limit, right? We haven't reached the debt limit. So what's the point? Are you looking forward to another go at a default?

mmi said:

I'm paying very little attention to this cuz I figure that's appropriate.

That material relates to the debt limit, right? We haven't reached the debt limit. So what's the point? Are you looking forward to another go at a default?

Click to expand...

Rather than defaulting, should some spending controls be put into place to keep the debt from increasing?

Seems that the much lauded Sequester kinda didn't do what it was supposed to.

WCH said:

It's not stopping this clock:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Click to expand...

I would seriously doubt that meter is actually connected to the treasury in any way. It's an estimate. If it was actually connected to the treasury, some months it would go down, because some months we run surpluses.

U.S. Posts Biggest Monthly Budget Surplus in Seven Years - WSJ

Anyhow, that website doesn't actually determine the debt.

imagep said:

I would seriously doubt that meter is actually connected to the treasury in any way. It's an estimate. If it was actually connected to the treasury, some months it would go down, because some months we run surpluses.

U.S. Posts Biggest Monthly Budget Surplus in Seven Years - WSJ

Anyhow, that website doesn't actually determine the debt.

Click to expand...

April is when people pay their taxes, May is when the Feds get around to processing and collecting the payments sent in.

No big surprise then.

WCH said:

Other than the manipulation itself, are we still paying our bills? The interest? etc.

Click to expand...

If you read your own cited article it says "continue extreme measures" or words to this effect.

So sure, they have stopped paying certain bills.

It looks like another increase to the debt ceiling will be necessary extremely soon.

Not sure the GOP has anything to gain now by making this a big deal.

The GOP is getting great publicity from the debates.

Why would Boehner want to squelch good publicity and replace it with another fiscal crisis?

He can't blame it on Hillary !!

And BHO has already won re-election and can't run again.

eohrnberger said:

the much lauded Sequester

Click to expand...

Lauded? So you agree it's bad policy. Ya know my side didn't want it. That sentiment has become more widespread.

"GOP to Stick to Sequester Spending Limits in 2016 Budget: Military spending a concern as Republicans likely to keep curbs enacted in 2011 debt deal," WSJ, Mar 10, 2015

"Ex-Defense Secretary William Cohen calls sequester 'absurd and obscene'," Rebecca D. Costa's blog, Jul 18, 2015

"Budget office: Sequester to cost 800,000 jobs over two years," Washington Examiner, Aug 11, 2015

mmi said:

Lauded? So you agree it's bad policy. Ya know my side didn't want it. That sentiment has become more widespread.

"GOP to Stick to Sequester Spending Limits in 2016 Budget: Military spending a concern as Republicans likely to keep curbs enacted in 2011 debt deal," WSJ, Mar 10, 2015

"Ex-Defense Secretary William Cohen calls sequester 'absurd and obscene'," Rebecca D. Costa's blog, Jul 18, 2015

"Budget office: Sequester to cost 800,000 jobs over two years," Washington Examiner, Aug 11, 2015

Click to expand...

While I may or may not agree with the Sequester itself, the one that Obama proposed and was adopted, the underlying problem, which is run away fed gov spending, needs to be addressed. We as a nation can't continue to be mortgaging our future like this. It is a fiscally unsound policy, to be spending more than you take in.

Rather than hiking taxes to a ridiculous extent, spending cuts and limits need to be imposed just like the teenager who get their credit card cut up, not able to handle the responsibility of a credit card, congress is being fiscally irresponsible with their spending.

Congress needs to learn how to say "No" to spending, and they need to learn how to live within the fed gov's means with their spending.

Riveroaks said:

If you read your own cited article it says "continue extreme measures" or words to this effect.

So sure, they have stopped paying certain bills.

It looks like another increase to the debt ceiling will be necessary extremely soon.

Not sure the GOP has anything to gain now by making this a big deal.

The GOP is getting great publicity from the debates.

Why would Boehner want to squelch good publicity and replace it with another fiscal crisis?

He can't blame it on Hillary !!

And BHO has already won re-election and can't run again.

Click to expand...

Just because they artifically stop the count doesn't mean our creditors do. That interest keeps piling up.

eohrnberger said:

the Sequester itself, the one that Obama proposed and was adopted

Click to expand...

Ya gonna stand on that? You know it was a game of chicken and neither side blinked. I'll say Obama's negotiators made a mistake in thinking that the GOP wouldn't accept the defence cuts, but I don't see how you can reasonably defend the idea that Obama is responsible. I mean, he's the big spender, right? Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

>>the underlying problem, which is run away fed gov spending

Runaway? We spent $11 billion less last year than we did in 2009, more than $250 billion less in real dollars. I'd say the problem is inadequate revenues. Look at ALL that money at the top end. Ya want this run like a business, right? Well, let's get down to business and recognize that SSE doesn't work. Income inequality has worsened under Obama because he's just now getting the policies to reverse that thirty-year trend implemented.

>>We as a nation can't continue to be mortgaging our future like this. It is a fiscally unsound policy, to be spending more than you take in.

The deficit is 2.8% of GDP. If we were spending more wisely, I'd support that level of borrowing. You borrow a little, you invest it intelligently, and you improve growth as a result.

>>Rather than hiking taxes to a ridiculous extent

Ridiculous? I want another couple of points on millionaires, and maybe another point on +$400K.

>>spending cuts and limits need to be imposed

I'm sure you guys will be there to keep an eye on the profligate Demecrats.

>>congress is being fiscally irresponsible with their spending.

With their tax policy.

>>Congress needs to learn how to say "No" to spending

"No" to fat cats.

mmi said:

Ya gonna stand on that? You know it was a game of chicken and neither side blinked. I'll say Obama's negotiators made a mistake in thinking that the GOP wouldn't accept the defence cuts, but I don't see how you can reasonably defend the idea that Obama is responsible. I mean, he's the big spender, right? Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

Click to expand...

No, Obama is a big spender and Sequester was his idea. Both of those are true. Now, does Obama or any other democrat want to cut spending? No, of course not, they simply went along at the time because even they understood that trillion dollar deficits were unsustainable. Now they simply want to feed their envy and buy votes by confiscating more from the productive members of society--as the rest of your post demonstrates.

WCH said:

Just because they artifically stop the count doesn't mean our creditors do. That interest keeps piling up.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Obviously there is a freeze on discrete spending.

Clearly the debt limit is being reached again.

Not so clear is what does Boehner intend to do about it?

There is nothing to be gained by making a stink.

At least, not anymore.

Boehner has already won the Senate for McConnell.

Fletch said:

No, Obama is a big spender and Sequester was his idea. Both of those are true. Now, does Obama or any other democrat want to cut spending? No, of course not, they simply went along at the time because even they understood that trillion dollar deficits were unsustainable. Now they simply want to feed their envy and buy votes by confiscating more from the productive members of society--as the rest of your post demonstrates.

Click to expand...

Why don't you give it a rest? BHO has 17 more months left in office. No longer. No shorter. No matter how much you cry about it.

Riveroaks said:

Why don't you give it a rest? BHO has 17 more months left in office. No longer. No shorter. No matter how much you cry about it.

Click to expand...

If you are going to quote my post, at least make your response coherent and relevant.

WCH said:

The portion of the federal debt that is subject to a legal limit set by Congress closed Monday, August 10, at $18,112,975,000,000, according to the latest Daily Treasury Statement, which was published at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday.

That, according to the Treasury's statements, makes 150 straight days the debt subject to the limit has been frozen at $18,112,975,000,000.

$18,112,975,000,000 is about $25 million below the current legal debt limit of $18,113,000,080,959.35.

snip...

150 Days: Treasury Says Debt Has Been Frozen at $18,112,975,000,000


It's been reduced to a Never Mind.

Click to expand...

Somewhere I read the debt is closing in on 25 Trillion.

eohrnberger said:

Rather than defaulting, should some spending controls be put into place to keep the debt from increasing?

Seems that the much lauded Sequester kinda didn't do what it was supposed to.

Click to expand...

actually it did which is why the deficit fell as much as it did.
however deficit =/= debt.

in order to lower the debt we have to pay more than the interest. the problem is in order to pay the interest we are borrowing money to pay it.
pretty much we are paying debt with debt which is economic suicide.

we have a spending problem and no one wants to man up and get the budget in order so that we can do something about it.
if you look at the unfunded liabilities that the government has we are pretty much doomed. currently it is estimated that
we have 128 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Fletch said:

Obama is a big spender

Click to expand...

We spent $11 billion less last year than we did in 2009, more than $250 billion less in real dollars.

>>Sequester was his idea.

And I'd say it was mishandled by the Administration. This is the kind of thing that happens when yer negotiating with a leadership in the House controlled by the other party that is strongly influenced by about sixty right-wing, teabugger nuts. It makes the whole budgeting process dysfunctional.

>>Now, does Obama or any other democrat want to cut spending?

I'm a Democrat. I want to eliminate all federal spending on right-wing, teabugger nuts. They want smaller gubmint, I say give 'em what they want.

>>they simply went along at the time because even they understood that trillion dollar deficits were unsustainable.

CBO says that budget authority in 2013 was reduced by $85.4 billion, but that actual outlays were cut by only $42.7 billion because Congress wiggled out of some of the cuts. That process would likely continue, but of course who's to say what will happen from one year to the next. In any event, the total projected savings from sequestration amount to less than $100 billion a year, so they aren't contributing much to deficit reduction.


They went along cuz they didn't think Boehner and Associates would accept the defence cuts.

>>Now they simply want to feed their envy and buy votes by confiscating more from the productive members of society

We want to be fiscally responsible and stop allowing fat cats to roll around in huge piles of disparate wealth they've accumulated through massive tax giveaways supported by people who are envious of their wealth and somehow think they may someday be there themselves. I always laugh at you clowns who say I'm envious. I have zero interest in being wealthy. I'd just give the money away to people who need it.

And we don't buy votes. We get them the old-fashioned way — we eaaaarn them.

ludin said:

actually it did which is why the deficit fell as much as it did.

Click to expand...

Actually, it didn't. Sequestration has reduced federal spending by less than $100 billion over two years and is projected to save $159 billion over the next three.

>>we have a spending problem

We have a revenue problem — the consequence of massive tax giveaways to wealthy households.

>>we have 128 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

No we don't. Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you-go systems.

eohrnberger said:

Rather than defaulting, should some spending controls be put into place to keep the debt from increasing?

Seems that the much lauded Sequester kinda didn't do what it was supposed to.

Click to expand...

What you are saying is we should have a balanced budget. To due so, you will need to either cut $450 billion in spending or add $450 billion in revenue. Of course, doing either will contract the economy.

As I have said many times, it's not necessary to have a balanced budget. The total debt will unimportant if we just keep the deficit, as a p% GDP, below growth.

mmi said:

Actually, it didn't. Sequestration has reduced federal spending by less than $100 billion over two years and is projected to save $159 billion over the next three.

Click to expand...

you need to read. I said deficit. see deficit.

>>we have a spending problem

We have a revenue problem — the consequence of massive tax giveaways to wealthy households.

Click to expand...

the same meme as always. the top 1% pay 37% percent of the income tax while earning 15% of the income so please tell me where the massive tax giveaways are
because I don't see them.

the top 10% pay over 50% of the income tax collected by the federal government. so where again are these massive tax giveaways at?
if you are spending more than you are bringing in then you have a spending problem not a revenue one. you need to know the difference.

>>we have 128 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

No we don't. Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you-go systems.

Click to expand...

you obviously don't know what unfunded liabilities mean and yes we do. that is money that the government
has promised to pay people but they haven't met the requirements to collect it.

MTAtech said:

What you are saying is we should have a balanced budget. To due so, you will need to either cut $450 billion in spending or add $450 billion in revenue. Of course, doing either will contract the economy.

Click to expand...

not really since there are about 500b dollars in fragmented and duplicate programs across the federal government.

As I have said many times, it's not necessary to have a balanced budget. The total debt will unimportant if we just keep the deficit, as a p% GDP, below growth.

Click to expand...

you can repeat the lie all you want to it will still be a lie.
as the total debt increases so does the interest owed on the debt.

within the next 20 years or so if nothing is done the interest alone will consume almost the entire budget.

Fletch said:

No, Obama is a big spender and Sequester was his idea. Both of those are true. Now, does Obama or any other democrat want to cut spending? No, of course not, they simply went along at the time because even they understood that trillion dollar deficits were unsustainable. Now they simply want to feed their envy and buy votes by confiscating more from the productive members of society--as the rest of your post demonstrates.

Click to expand...

Please enumerate how Obama is a big spender? Where is the big growth in government? Where are all the new federal programs?

As one of those 'productive members of society' I don't mind paying more taxes for the good of the country and it won't hurt me one bit.