Slashdot Mirror

What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad.

This is clearly a bald faced lie, as a simple look at the national debt over time shows you.

No it isn't. Your own link shows the fact that you are trying to deny - it shows a decrease in debt (both inflation-adjusted and unadjusted) after WWII. If it went back farther, it would also show debt being paid down earlier in the nation's history.

All you've really done through this whole argument is play semantic games to try to redefine the idea of debt being paid down, because you made a factually untrue statement several comments ago. Instead of admitting the fault and moving on, you have doubled down on ignorance.

If you want even more unequivocal evidence that the U.S. economy was once managed by responsible adults: When the US Paid Off the Entire National Debt

Just admit it. You were wrong.

What we are talking about is your claim:

What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad.

This is clearly a bald faced lie, as a simple look at the national debt over time shows you. And to compound your lie, you are trying to pretend that looking at debt as percentage of GDP or in constant dollars amounts to "paying off debt".

Thanks for illustrating again what a bunch of dishonest crooks Keynesians and progressives are. You almost rise to the level of idiocy and dishonesty of Krugman. Almost.

We could go on a tangent about whether GDP percentage or absolute dollars is a better measure, but no need.

It's not a question of which is a "better measure": no debt was paid back.

You are still wrong: https://www.brillig.com/debt_c... [brillig.com]

Again, no debt was repaid.

Either economics...

Since you can't even figure out what "repaying debt" means, I think any further discussion with you about financial forecasting, Keynesianism, or Austrian economics is pointless.

The graph shows debt as percentage of GDP; the graph slopes downward not because any debt was paid off but because of economic growth.

We could go on a tangent about whether GDP percentage or absolute dollars is a better measure, but no need. You are still wrong: https://www.brillig.com/debt_c...

What makes you think that Jim O'Sullivan is a Keynesian? Plenty of people who reject Keynesianism build mathematical economic models (I do).

Anybody who uses mathematical modeling is not an Austrian economist, because Austrian economists eschew quantitative methods on philosophical grounds.

Furthermore, O'Sullivan may simply have been lucky.

MarketWatch explained that the chances of O'Sullivan being this successful is less than 1 in 37 million. He's been the best economic forecaster, far and away, for several years running. He's had to get lucky hundreds of times a year (that's how often he beats the consensus estimate) and do it many years in a row. That's not luck - he's using state-of-the-art quantitative analysis, which is explicitly rejected by the Austrian school.

But Austrian economists continue to put hyperinflation predictions out there that are easily proved wrong when said hyperinflation fails to materialize over and over.

You obviously are only familiar with a caricature of Austrian economics.

No, I'm citing the Austrian economists that claimed Obama's economic policies would cause hyperinflation. This was a common claim. If you think those are unrepresentative, show me an economist who is making good predictions without using mathematical models, like a good Austrian.

At the end of the day, something like economics is only useful to the extent that it has predictive power

Austrians don't dispute that economics is useful, they dispute that it is a science.

I never said that economics is a science - you are just distracting from the main point. Since you didn't respond to it earlier, I'll repeat my basic contention:

Either economics can make useful predictions, in which case it makes claims that are falsifiable, or it doesn't make useful predictions, in which case it's completely pointless.

So which is it?

Lets call some of this out and see how true it rings?

The western world has a strong economy, robust freedoms, and a government that the people have a say in. When an American military shoots civilians, the government is directly accountable to the people. When the Chinese government guns down demonstrators, nothing happens because the people have no say.

1) http://www.brillig.com/debt_cl...
Yes, 18 TRILLION in debt is clearly a sign of a robust economy.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
SO when the USS Vincennes shot down a commercial jet and asked for an apology the US was forthcoming with one?

Weird how the wiki article contradicts what you wrote:
You said "the government is directly accountable to the people."

they said:
As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.

So clearly they did it but refuse to admit it? Is that 'accountable'?

3) Read the washington times review of the US (hint, it is not what you think) http://www.washingtontimes.com...

"having a government that cannot be criticized? "
how about you find some intellectuals from the 1950's who were "blacklisted" in the US for "un-american" ideas and ask them how they felt about having a government that cannot be criticized? That way you can hear it first-hand and in English.

One wonders whether you will be able to visit this page to reply, because of the forbidden words (democracy, vote, Tianenmen, Xiaobo) on it.

Here is an idea, perhaps they are not in china?

Uh...the U.S. governement is already bankrupt. I don't think anything can stop the U.S. from being at war.

You mean the deficit that's been reduced from 30-50% in the last 4 years depending on your numbers?

Citation needed desperately. Here are mine.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Our dept is now 16.7 trillion. It has not gone down to any significant degree. I believe the treasury paid down something like 35 billion. A drop in the bucket and virtually meaningless.

You're right!
Minor nitpick though: it's 16742 billion dollars at the moment, that's indeed well over 16 billion.
It's easy to get confused, because your 16 billion is how much your deficit grows per week.

What with all the money we're in the hole, why hasn't anyone yet brought up the possibility of taxing religious organizations?

I'm sure they'd like to help.

Dear Senator Wyden

Thank you for your good intentions, but...just why is this a task for the federal government? An ISP uses local infrastructure to provide service to local residents. Only in the strangest of cases (Texahoma) will an individual transaction cross state lines. The Commerce Clause does not apply. This is not the business of the federal government.

Anyway, surely you have more important things to worry about?

Read though this.. I bet I'll get you to laugh. Nothing like life.

Let's take you back to grade school. Congress is the one that does the budget, not the President. He can either approve or veto it. The ONLY reason we nearly balanced the budget under Clinton was with the Republican controlled Congress. If you look at the debt clock site, adjusted for inflation, it's definitive. Clinton fought it kicking and screaming, shutting down the government for weeks until he capitulated. We had welfare reform, they shut down a bunch of useless agencies and so on. I worked in the agency that was attached to the Interstate Commerce Commision. Their last action at that point was TEN years before their demise. Literally did NOTHING for a decade. Republicans do work and work well. You're confused by the outright lies from the left. It's not surprising, it starts in the schools. Look here - http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html, scroll about half way down where it's adjusted. Still pitiful. If we only continued with a Republican congress into the 2000s.

If you don't hear that stuff on the left, you're not listening. Just look at Obama's "the rights war on women.". What a load of crap. "Romney will take away your 'right' to an abortion." Really? The President can overturn a Supreme Court decision? Of course not. That's not even being considered. They said the same thing about Reagan, nothing happened. So now you, I, everyone has to pay for women to have free contraception. Does this mean Obama has a war on Men? Where's my contraception? How absurd, how absurd on the womans side. What a load of rottin goods and people bought it. Then "the rich" stuff. All kinds of race baiting. The left called Mr. Steele a Nigger. Called Herman Cane a Nigger too. Just google it. Joe Biden and his chains bit. It's all out there if you're listening.

Conservatives are also not homophobic. Just because you don't want a very small minority to redefine marriage - something that is a religious entity for THOUSANDS of years the world over and was codified into law for separation purposes, that doesn't make you a homophobe. Conservative - yes because you are preserving what worked. How dare gay people try to shove that down the rest of the worlds throats. Call it something else, make it legally the same thing and have a nice day. If I were asked, I'd make it what it is - screwed. Then you can go to a screwing. They were screwed. A few years later they'll even agree they were screwed. Especially when they go to court to undo it. I'd extend it though. I'd make it such that a daugher and her mother or other relatives can get screwed too. That way they too can take advantage of the laws for being married. Happens more than I thought.

We also have learned from history that any nation that doesn't secure its boarders will fall. We have laws on immigration. Why not enforce them? Why say this is somehow racist when hispanic isn't even a race. It's an ethnicity. They are white. People that I know that are naturalized are really upset about it. Much more than I am. One guy is from Bangladesh. I asked about their illegal alien policy. He said it was simple. If he went into India or they come into Bangladesh - you're shot. If you survive you're shot again. Only America bends over and says - let me look away. Here's some money too. Now let me help you some too. As some sothern states showed us, they could be gone by the end of December. Just pass laws like they did. They left in droves. Our job problem would likely get a big boost, hospitals will be a lot more solvent, things will improve dramatically.

This is not to say that I'm happy with the GOP. Right now they're our best bet. That's sad. We need a big overhaul. Both parties are just bad. Right now we're screwed. It will take a lot to fix what's wrong, especially since Obama is running up the debt more and faster than anyone. Before the election he had already run it up more than all the previous presidents combined. Where's the benefit? We should be swimming in stuff. He squandered it. We will be Greece. It's just a matter of time.

Yet, if you look at the records you discover that U.S. national debt has increased every year since 1949.

Gosh, that's a strange-looking increase right around the year 2000...

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif

Yeah, because the federal government has been so much better at keeping its fiscal house in order.

The highest debt per capita of any state in the country is Connecticut at $5,402.

The per capita debt of the federal government is $51,654.92 or more than 9 times as much.

Total spending per capita in the United States has gone from $6,339.90 in 2000 to $11,194.30 in 2010. The inflation adjusted increase was 39.4%.

California and Illinois are acknowledged fiscal basket cases - the inflation adjusted per capita increase in spending in those two states from 2000 to 2012 were 42% and 57% respectively. The median state (Michigan at #25) had a 38% increase - slightly better than the US.

Let's just say that neither level of government has been fiscally responsible. All of these figures are increases per capita - more money being spent per person - which means even if everyone (including the rich) was pitching in like it was the height of the dot-com bubble we'd still be under water.

You dream of being as out of money as the french.. TICK TOCK - http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Actually, you're wrong. The national debt was roughly $10T when Bush left office in 2008. It's now pushing $16T, three years and six months into Obama's term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Not only that, almost all the debt added under Bush II was done after Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006.

The Pelosi/Reid/Obama debt is about HALF the entire US debt.

Actually, you're wrong. The national debt was roughly $10T when Bush left office in 2008. It's now pushing $16T, three years and six months into Obama's term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's not like he has any other crony capitalist debt to service.

NASA 2010 budget - $18,724,000,000
DoD 2010 spending - $680,000,000,000

There's room for a lot more spending on space if we change our priorities.

American debt - $15,245,575,631,856.14
and you think

There's room for a lot more spending...

?
I get that you're saying too much is spent on war and not enough on science, but the bigger picture would seem to indicate that America's overspent on everything, cleaning up that impossible account would mean a direct meaningful improvement on citizen's lives.

I'm not actually sure how accurate it is, but this is where I went:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

I suspect it's using some sort of an algorithm, rather then getting this data live, but I imagine it's probably accurate at least to the million :P

Only 74999999 more scandalous wastes of money like this to go, and you can pay off the U.S.A. national debt!
(15 trillion / 200 thousand)
Better work fast though.. if you save 20 000 times as much money per day (4 giga U.S. $), you may actually stay ahead of getting into more debt.

P.S. my joke was going to be 14 trillion, but I saw that in the mean time it has become 15 trillion.

Douglas Hofstadter once wrote something about "innumeracy" I believe.

"As it currently exists, if we were to take 100% of the income from every American today, it would not pay off the national debt. "

False. but hey, I don't really except anyone to understand what the national debt actual is.

OTOH, that line did spare me from reading the rest of your post, since It is probably as accurate.

Which part did you think was false about those numbers?
Federal debt (not to mention state debt) is 14 T
Total personal income in 2010 was 12 T

The last time I checked, the US was still a democracy. Currently, 47% of the country (including me) would prefer to not raise the debt ceiling, while 42% (presumably including you) are all in a panic that not raising it would be a catastrophe. I am tired of the government borrowing money on my behalf, while you would like your debt to be even more than the $46,137.29 it is now. When do you plan on paying this debt back? Ours are therefore opposite and irreconcilable positions, perfectly reflecting the opposite and irreconcilable positions held by the two parties in Congress. What you are proposing that your view must be imposed on everybody in the country, ignoring the views of the other 47% of americans. That's not how democracy works. That's how a dictatorship works. If you like that system, try moving to China or something. In America we try to not allow a minority dictate the majority what to do (even though, unfortunately, it does happen).

You never realize what a great country we live in until you've gone to another country and had the ability to be able to make a an unbiased comparison. Not what you read or hear on the news, but determine on your own, just how valuable what we do here in America.

What is your great country going to do after 2011-08-02 then:

This delays any breaching of the limit to 2 August. Congress is currently negotiating an increase to the limit, without which the US risks defaulting on its debt.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

I know this is slashdot where kicking America it the thing to do,

Your post pissed me off sufficiently to make this long rant. Thank you!
I grew up in Western Europe. I like kicking America in exactly the same sense as how you'd kick a rich fat drunk who collapsed and fell asleep outside in -20 deg. C (that's -4 deg. Fahrenheit for you Americans), so that he gets his ass into gear to save his life from hypothermia.

Business as usual is over. Welcome to the 21st century. This is the century of transitions, of steady-state economies instead of growth economies, of humanity adapting to live from only the energy influx to our one planet that's provided by sunlight. This concept begins to dawn in most intelligent people in our world. It's just that you Americans have been so rich, so powerful, so much on top of the world, that you have lost important concepts in your vocabulary and thought-patterns:

Sustainability is not a dirty word, it's been business as usual everywhere up until the Industrial Revolution (see Medieval demography).

Solidarity is needed for functioning societies. When Hurricane Katrina came I followed the Slashdot discussions. You didn't even know the word.

Economic growth is a historical trend, not a natural law

The biblical story of the seven fat years followed by the seven meagre years (aren't there Americans still alive who lived through the Great Depression and Dust Bowl years? ask them if debt has to be paid back at some point.)

It's either adapt *RIGHT NOW* or head for ecological overshoot. And you are unprepared. Where's your railroad infrastructure? Where's your smart electric grid? Where's your long-term nuclear waste storage, in case it becomes too expensive to build one later on in this century? Where's your functioning health-care system? (every other rich country has 'em). Those infrastructures cost a lot of time and energy to build. Your time is running out.

You are unprepared because your politics by TV soundbites deals in trifles (gay marriage, abortion) and not in real problems (phosphate cycle, global warming, infrastructure for after Peak Oil). So does politics in many other countries, but you *are* the richest, most developed and most powerful up until now. You have set a very bad example.

You don't listen to other countries; you have your own units system (Imperial) 100 years after everyone else except Burma has switched to metric. This points to the idea that you expect other countries to do as you, not the other way around. That's fine, but don't expect them to come helping you with advice on boring subsistence agriculture in your garden plot when you're in trouble.

We see you lying on the ground in a stupor and freezing. But OK, if you don't want us to kick you, we won't kick you anymore: it's true that you never asked for help from anyone so we understand if you don't appreciate help now. It was nice knowing you; thanks for the old Hollywood films.

Here's one last kick especially for you: Closing the 'Collapse Gap': the USSR was better prepared for collapse than the US by Dmitry Orlov

This is 29% more than the GDP of the entire world which, in 2009, was only $58 trillion. The United States GDP for the same year was a measly $14 trillion, which is almost equal to our national debt (which TFA notes).

You owe me $ 0.000 006 4 (preferably NOT payable in U.S. $)

If the US has a trade deficit, how are you going to pay back the yearly interest on this?? (in real money, not US$)

Way to not understand. That tax model is quite correct and you are just misrepresenting it to try and prove a point.

I suppose you think we can pull our way out of this economic slump and bailouts of giant corporations with puppies and wishes? As per http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/, we currently owe $43,261.80 per citizen! Maybe you can afford to write a check for this, but not most of us lower and middle class. If the corporate-welfare republicans (not all republicans are this type) didn't bankrupt our country, this wouldn't be a problem. I realize that Obama isn't exactly reducing our debt either, but at this point I don't think he has much choice. History has not shown the republicans to be any better. Check out this link http://zfacts.com/p/318.html and see how much good Bush/Reagan's tax policies have done to paying our debts.

Just for future reference,

33,000 USD of hard drives, currently at about 1.5 TiB for 80 USD, is 633,600 GiB.

633,600 GiB can store 158,400,000 songs, at 4 MiB apiece.

The second trial of Jammie Thomas awarded the RIAA 1,920,000 USD for 24 songs, which comes out to 80,000 USD apiece.

For 158,400,000 songs, the RIAA would be awarded 12,672,000,000,000 USD (12 trillion short scale). That's only a bit less than the national US debt, which is 13,208,593,598,669 USD (13 trillion short scale) as of this comment!

• I haven't read a single thread where the word "solidarity" is mentioned. I read several posts paraphrasing it, but never the word itself. Almost as if it is a concept that's alien to the American psyche. How can it be that no poster here has written "we need this healthcare reform to improve SOLIDARITY between our citizens" and many have written "I'm not going to work my ass off to pay for healthcare for my slacking neighbours"?
  It is my naïve idea that a society can't live, can't survive, without some measure of solidarity between its constituents. Evidently the USA hasn't collapsed yet, so they must have solidarity in some shape or form, but maybe it's a dirty word or tabu to mention it? I don't understand.. This is Slashdot, never heard of the Golden Rule? never heard of coöperation as a viable game-theoretic strategy?
• And secondly, I have the strong feeling that I'm missing something in the debate here. Almost as if there is an aspect of the USA healthcare system which remains hidden in this discussion, meaning all the frothing-at-the-mouth is skirting the real issue because not all components are up for rational debate.
  I like a good flamewar as well as anyone (hey, this is Slashdot), but the fact that this single USA healthcare law triggered 1400 responses, much more than say, ACTA or DMCA etc., indicates to me that there's something else at work here. Much as it pains me to say, I can't believe that the stereotypical USA political dualism causes all this handwringing. I refuse to believe that Americans are *that* stupid. So what aspect, what component of USA society makes it so unpalatable to have a healthcare system similar to that of many other rich countries, most of which are allies or trade partners of the US? Is American society really so different?

So let me summarize what I see as the facts (from my biased outsider perspective ;-) ) and let's try to work it out:

• The current USA health insurance system doesn't work and is seriously more expensive and less efficient and fair than that of comparable rich countries
• The current USA government tried and succeeded to push a reform law through against seriously large opposition, with the effect that many more Americans will have access to health insurance and will try to vote to get rid of it again in the coming November election (wtf??).
• To this outsider, more efficient health insurance seems like a good thing for the USA and for the world because more USA citizens will be able to work longer and in better health, improving the crushing debt situation of the USA so they can pay us (=rest of the world) back instead of following in the footsteps of Argentina and dragging us into a world economic depression.
• Hundreds of Slashdotters oppose the legislation with arguments like "it's too expensive" and "Obama pushes us further into debt" so obviously they don't see it that way.
• What are we outsiders missing? You can't seriously believe that the richest country in the world can't afford universal healthcare because "it's too expensive" but many countries that, although rich, are not *as* rich, can. I assume that if health *care* in the USA were similarly expensive as in other rich countries, health *insurance* would also be a drain on the US similar to the drain it is in those other countries, i.e. expensive but not *too* expensive.
• I can't find a solution other than that my assumption is wrong, and that health *care* in the USA is abnormally expensive, forcing or allowing health *insurance* to be 7-10 times as expensive for the average family as it is in other countries. Also, several stories here tol

See for yourself: debt clock

If you are a citizen of the US, then you have a share of the national debt hanging over your head.

The political propaganda used to obscure this fact does not change it.

Americans cannot continue to live this way forever.

Here's another debt clock, this one's been ticking for years already: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

We're at $12 trillion already, how exactly are we going to pay for this? Sooner or later, the economy will improve, interest rates will go up, and the only way we'll get out is by printing trillions and trillions of dollars to give to China, Japan and the others, effectively ending the US dollar's role as a currency (and a whole host of other consequences).

it's nearly impossible to figure out what money is going where.

At least we know where it comes from.

The U.S. government has no money. In the entire history of the world,
it is the entity most deeply in debt.

I've discovered that U.S. citizens do not want to believe that their
government is corrupt. When they are presented with evidence of corruption,
most avoid awareness.

When an individual runs out of money, is buried deep in debts that they cannot realistically repay, they are forced into bankruptcy (or prison, in nations that don't allow bankruptcy). What I'd like to know is: what happens when a country is buried in debts they cannot repay ? Is there a collections agency that deals with insolvable nations ?

According to the CIA, the U.S. government's external debt currently stands at almost 14 trillion dollars, or roughly $42000 per capita. That means every single U.S. citizen would have to cough up $42000 right now, to clear the debt - every single citizens, which includes children, elderly, unemployed, infirm, prison population etc. That's on top of your own living costs. Not gonna happen!

All these "stimulus packages" and grants only serve to artificially increase the GDP, which is a largely useless metric anyway since it does not distinguish between income and expense. It makes the country look good on paper, to all those pseudo-religious stock market suckers who are easily impressed by large meaningless numbers. In the end, the only thing these grants accomplish is to allow the government and banks to shave a little more off of each transaction, "creating jobs" and making the debt problem worse for everyone. Inflation will continue to rise.

Agreed. The system makes no sense. There are people for whom an old car is not especially polluting, because they only drive it an average of 5 miles per week. Possibly it is a second vehicle that they keep at a country house. Perhaps they are usually outside the United States.

Giving away taxpayer money causes inflation. The inflation is not only in the dollar generally, but also in the price of new cars. Those who focus on the free taxpayer money they are getting may not realize that the dealer has raised prices.

To me, the "Cash for Clunkers" program seems like government corruption. General Motors failed because of consistent bad management, in which most of its cars were rated poorly by Consumer Reports.

Now taxpayer money is being used to support bad management, and the taxpayer money goes to support people who have enough money that buying a new car is a goal, instead of finding a job, or getting through university.

The U.S. government has no money. In the entire history of the world, it is the entity most deeply in debt.

I've discovered that U.S. citizens do not want to believe that their government is corrupt. When they are presented with evidence of corruption, most avoid awareness.

That taxpayer money partly helps some people profit

What do you mean by taxpayer money?

Relax. Nobody denies that the U.S. of A. is the greatest nation on earth, in certain categories ;-).

Do you even know what you are talking about? Supposed if we gave 100% of our profits to the US Gov it would take 1 year to pay off and build a nice reservoir for our gov. $14.29 trillion (2008 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/US.html to 11trillion http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Now we know who's responsible for this!

$33m?

That's about 2.9e-4% of US national debt.

Sure, they have their priorities straight...

Yeah, that's almost like that episode of Sliders with the vampires. Or zombies. I forget which. Anyway, yeah, that's a really good reason why we shouldn't ever release any new medicine. It's just too dangerous to humanity as a whole! :')

It was zombies, and the "zombie" effect was caused by some sort of diet supplement originally, before it spread (and I'm amazed I remember that). (found a link:http://www.brillig.com/sliders/episodes/41.html)

Considering how "Wonderfully Regulated" the diet and weight loss field is, I'm sure we have nothing to fear from a harmful supplement. ~

"it could mean that Canada is going into more debt for health care than the United States."

Canada is spending less per capita, and might somehow be going into more debt? Um, no. I suppose it is possible if Canada did not tax their population enough, but they seem to be doing so - through most of the 1990s and early 2000s Canada's debt was actually falling. Today it seems to be at about $13,800 per person (Canadian dollars are worth something like $0.84 according to http://www.xe.com/ so that comes out to about $11,560 US per person ) while the US debt seems to be about $36,600 per person. They are both growing, but since the Canadian one is less than 1/3 of the US one, I think Canada is clearly in a better position to the US from a national debt point of view.

I do not know about dept per GNP, but the GNP per capita of the US seems to be $43,743, while Canada is $32,546 according to http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNBH2.html so the US is ahead by a factor of 1.344036, so dept per GNP (the "per capitas" will cancel out) of the US is ($36,600/$43,743 =) 0.8367053 and for Canada it is ($11,560/$32,546 =) 0.3551895.

The US national dept: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Canadian national dept: http://www.debtclock.ca/

Here is a Wikipedia entry that lists Canada as ahead of the US, but not by as much as my numbers above - maybe their numbers are a bit older?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

From the article linked in the Slashdot story: "The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying - that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes."

And: "This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one - not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration - has ever interpreted the law this way." [emphasis added]

In recent years, the U.S. government has carried other corruption to levels never seen before: 1) A higher percentage of its people in prison than ever before in the history of the world. 2) More countries invaded or bombed than any other country in the history of the world. (24 since the end of the 2nd world war.) 3) More government debt than any other country in the history of the world. 4) More people killed during undeclared wars than any other country in the history of the world. (11,000,000 killed directly and indirectly in 24 countries.) 5) More money spent on secret surveillance than any country in the history of the world.

The book House of Bush, House of Saud, tells about how Bush and his friends and family took money to support the Saudis against the best interests of the United States.

One guess is that someone told the Obama administration a huge number of lies to get people to allow the corruption. That's what they did with the Bush administration.

The U.S. government is no longer under control of the people, it is a dictatorship of the corrupters. What does it matter if a majority vote for a change if there is no change?

I agree with the sentiment, but it's the *Federal* government has just put every last man, woman, and child in the US on the hook for many additional trillions worth of spending (each of our share is up to $36,000). Ultimately, in a government "by the people", we're actually responsible for covering what our government does (and spends).

Holy crap. Have we learned absolutely nothing? I know it's been a whole 6 months, but does anyone remember problems with us extending loans in order to make risky investments "less risky"?

Reducing the cost of capital does not affect the risk of the endeavor. It just shifts it from the person taking out the loan to the person giving the loan. If the person giving the loan is the government (or gets bailed out by the government), then this shifts risk from the individual investor TO EVERY TAXPAYER.

Does this sound at all familiar to you?

I'm sorry, because I know you meant well, but I get so tired of people looking only at the benefit of an action without any consideration for the cost. I don't think I'm being overdramatic when I say it's going to end up destroying this country http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

You can add that people are also paying attention to the excuses that the new head of the IRS gave about his inability to pay taxes.

Add Daschel to the list.

Seems to me, we should let Obama keep choosing his cabinet ... we'll have that nasty debt paid off in no time.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

So you are saying The Republicans are responsible for ALL the debt before the Democrats got majority? Get your head out from CNN's arse.

I'm sure it makes you feel better that you have a side to pick, but the reality is, both parties are to blame. Don't sit on your laurels and trust any of the politicians. Make them accountable.

As long as the "pork" is spent fairly among states and doesn't bankrupt us

Except for the fact that if our nation was a business, it would be so bankrupt, it's ridiculous:
Debt Clock