This Alone Validates Clinton’s Loss

I was poking around the definition of “national debt”, by consulting various online entities, some of them governmental. “National debt” varies according to what one considers. I was looking to see whether “Quantitative Easing” (the buying by the central banks of depleted assets to the wealthiest to make them wealthy again — the way it was done by our unforgivable leaders).

The smallest interpretation of “national debt” in the case of the USA is around $13 trillions, 80% of US GDP. That smallest notion of debt considers only the FEDERAL debt held by the PUBLIC… After excluding all sorts of obligations (like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, real estates entities held by the US government)… or what the US government owes to future Social Security recipients (most of the US population). The smallest number is what the Demoncrats love to brandish. However, it will not affect the stunning discovery I made (below).

This Is The Smallest Interpretation Of Debt, The One Held By The Public, After EXCLUDING All Sorts Of Gigantic Obligations, Bankrupt Governmental Entiries, And Inter-Governmental Debt, And Also After Excluding the "Fed Balance Sheet"

This Is The Smallest Interpretation Of Debt, The One Held By The Public, After EXCLUDING All Sorts Of Gigantic Obligations, Bankrupt Governmental entities, And Inter-Governmental Debt, And Also After Excluding the “Fed Balance Sheet”

Obama augmented enormously the US National Debt. What for?

The OECD considers that US government debt, including state and local government, is 125% of US GDP. By comparison, the OECD considers that the “general government debt” of socialist France is a bit less, 120% of GDP (same link).

The maximal interpretation of the US National Debt is well above 50 trillion dollars, more than 300% of GDP. Similar numbers, in terms of percentage of GDP, are true for comparable countries (such as France, UK, etc.)

The US government seizes some revenues, like the Social Security tax and consumes it right away (instead of putting the money in the Social Security Trust Fund). The result of this sort of maneuvers is “intergovernmental debt”, which is around 6 trillion dollars. I knew this. This “borrowing” from Social Security has to be absolutely incorporated in the notion of National Debt, because it represents borrowing from the Public by other (unwilling) means. Fair accounting requires to do this.

By this reckoning, the internationally recognized US Federal debt, in December 2015, a year ago,  was 101% of US GDP (a number comparable to that of socialist France… I don’t mean that as an insult: the present presidency of France is held by the French Socialist Party, and so is the Parliament and Senate! They will be thrown out of power in five months.)

But then I learned something new, which jumped at me. The US National Debt reached 106% of GDP in July 2016, six months later. That is an annual rate of augmentation of roughly 10% a year. In a way, it makes sense: when Obama was inaugurated, the US National Debt was just 68%. So, in seven years, Obama increased the US debt by 33%, a rate of augmentation of nearly 5% a year. So Obama just doubled his rate of augmentation of US debt in 2016.

After I pointed out this enormous jump of the debt on Tweeter, I got the following reaction (from which I borrowed the title of this essay):

Philip N. Beam Sr.@PhilipBeamSr

@Tyranosopher @CraigRBrittain @wikileaks Just this alone should be enough to validate Hillary’s loss.


And this debt catastrophe is not going to improve: the cost of Obamacare is up 25% from 2016 to 2017. The New York Times and the Reaganite Paul Krugman (the fellow Nobel of Obama and self-aggrandizing, self-described as “the conscience of a liberal”) swooned that this 25% jump in Obamacare cost, was just a one-time augmentation.

However, as there are no serious cost controls in Obamacare, this is highly unlikely: taxpayers will have to pay increasingly plutocrats such as Warren buffet, who made many billions out of US health care, to better lecture the losers down there who don’t know how to invest or work, and, moreover, vote for Trump.  

One may wonder how, mechanically dear leader Obama generated so much debt. The following graph explains it all: Obama lowered the taxes on the wealthy, while showering the poor with gold, and various services, to make them stupidly favorable. This is a very old method, invented and practiced industrially, by Roman emperors (it did not end well).

Under Obama Tax Receipts, Which Come Mostly From Taxing The Rich, Were Kept Artificially, Unsustainably Low. No Wonder the Hyper Rich Were Mostly All For Obama, And Against The (For Them Frighteningly) Unpredictable Trump.

Under Obama Tax Receipts, Which Come Mostly From Taxing The Rich, Were Kept Artificially, Unsustainably Low. No Wonder the Hyper Rich Were Mostly All For Obama, And Against The (For Them Frighteningly) Unpredictable Trump.

So Obama was a Progressive In Name Only (PINO), or DINO (Democrat In Name Only). He built up a giant deficit, and thus National Debt, so that his friends would stay rich.

Yes, indeed. During the 2008 crisis, part of the wealthiest lost most of their wealth to fellow wealthy people (thanks to a lot of leveraging, as organized by Clinton, Bill). Obama could have let the entities in difficulty go bankrupt, as Reagan and Bush Sr. did in the 1980s. And then buy them on the cheap. Instead he went a different route, using TARP and paying TARP with Quantitative Easing. A route which made the wealthiest, wealthier. (He probably does not understand this, to this day!)

A related matter is the striking improvement of some US socioeconomic metrics in the last couple of months before the US presidential election.

For example, the US median family income rocketed up in the last few weeks before the elections.. I was very surprised by this, and suspicious. Indeed, the US median family income peaked, in real dollars, in 1998, when it succumbed to Bill Clinton’s pro-wealth policies of the Goldman Sachs government. Ever since it has been down, as Democrat and Republican leadership followed the sort of Reagan, trickle down policies which got great demoncratic leaders such as Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Paul Krugman launched (Rubin was CEO of Goldman Sachs, while Summers and Krugman were at the White House, telling Reagan what to do).

In Brazil, president Dilma Rousseff did a similar trick: she cooked the numbers to make the economy look better than it really was. She was re-elected, thanks to those numbers, but when the cooking surfaced, and started to smell bad, she was impeached. It turns out that the Brazilian sociopolitical leadership is thoroughly corrupt. All the way to socialist icons and ex-guerillas (such as Dilma; by the way, Dilma did not profit personally materially from the cooking of the numbers… except that she got, however fleetingly, re-elected).

Some will say that the USA is not Brazil. Indeed, the USA is much more corrupt, so the institutionalization of the corruption in the USA is hard to even point out, lest one is ready to be called a lunatic.

It is not just financial corruption, it’s also media, even mental corruption, which is more extensive in the USA: when Brazilian leaders lose an election, they don’t accuse Russia.

So did Obama’s underlings cook the numbers? In light of the stupendous augmentation of the debt in the months prior to the presidential election, one can only be suspicious.

Augmenting the US National Debt, my dear Obama, at a ten percent annual rate, was trying to buy the presidential election. That’s how history will remember it. History will also remember that you tried to lower the American Republic to the status of vulgar Banana Republic, by claiming it was all Russia’s fault.

For years, the USA crowed that it was the world’s hacking master, even making Iranian nuclear equipment spin out of control (Stuxnet virus). Vast arms of the government masquerading as private entities, among them Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, were hacking the world, and it was fine.

A real democratic republic and open society should never underestimate others’ propensity to mimic anti-democratic, anti-republican and vicious means!

This happened before: the Athenian empire behaved several times in terrible ways. And that was probably why Athens lost the Penopolesian war (Athens had stolen the Delian League treasury, and destroyed the island state of Melos, both for no good reason, among other exploits of demented cruelty unbound). Later, other Greek states imitated the Athenian ways, and Athens lost the war, and half of her population. She survived only thanks to Sparta (the ultimate ignominy!)

Behaving badly feels good, until on is found out by the public. Happy new year Obama and your sycophantic pro-plutocratic media!

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , ,

14 Responses to “This Alone Validates Clinton’s Loss”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Yes, it’s amazing the MSM does not point out that the US debt has exploded in the last few months. I bet it has to with its well-known impartiality.

    Anyway good job, we depend upon you for important news. And happy new year!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks! BTW, I added a section/graph to explain that the debt explosion under Obama was caused by his love of plutocracy: he kept the taxes on his plutocratic masters too low.

  2. Paul Handover Says:

    I have stared at my screen, my cursor blinking away at the top left-hand corner of your comment box, for the last ten minutes trying to come up with some phrase, some saying, that reflects what reading your essay has done to me! 😉

    At a practical level I support what Gmax wrote above: “.. we depend on you for important news.”

    Yet my head is unable to comprehend the madness, the complete and total madness, of the leaders of a Nation that should be the model of excellence for the whole free world.

    So I am reduced to writing this: Will the last person to leave the planet please turn out the lights!”

    Happy New Year to you and all your readers.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Have to run, Paul, will be back in several hours. I added more material in the essay, with, and below, another graph explaining what happened…
      Very Happy New Year to you too, talk to you later!

      • Paul Handover Says:

        I have read the additional material which does nothing to reduce the degree of incomprehension I am feeling. It makes me feel incredibly grateful for living with so many loving animals around me, topped off by having the most fabulous, selfless, woman in my life loving me, in a few acres away from the ‘real’ world. A real world that is unreal.

        Thank goodness, and this is a genuine expression, not me playing to the audience, that all across the world, via the internet, good and sensible people can reach out to others.

  3. Lovell Says:

    Oh my. For the coming year, I just wish both the Clintons and Obama will permanently exile themselves from Washington even as they embrace the reptilian world of Wall Street crooks.


    So-called “national debt” is not necessarily a bad thing for a monetarily sovereign country like the US. Think of it as the total savings of the private sector which the federal gov’t could, at any time, if it so wish, repay by just transferring numbers from one account to another in much the same way that a private bank could transfer a depositor’s asset from his savings to his checking account.

    The US federal government is not going to go bankrupt even if its “national debt” will balloon up to 500% of GDP.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Lovell: Happy New Year!
      You are right that, to some extent, and in some circumstances, the US would not get bankrupt even if the US debt ballooned to 500% of GDP.

      Japan’s debt is already at about 245% of its annual gross domestic product — or more than 1 quadrillion yen ($11 trillion). “Japan’s public debt is unsustainable under current policies,” the IMF said in a report issued Thursday.Jul 23, 2015

      Since then it became basically 300% of GDP (292% last I looked). The Japanese gov can simply turn around, and confiscate it (it’s mostly owned by Japanese). It would become a tax.

      However, one can play the confiscatory tax thing only so many times, before people refuse to play: that was demonstrated already in the Late Roman empire. There was a gigantic crisis when the more or less wealthy, more or less aristocratic part of the population in charge of organizing local elections (and thus public life) refused to play (because they could not sustain the expense). They got to prefer the barbarians to the Roman government (that was said at the time, word for word).

      On this very site, individuals such as Mr. Luong, a known intellectual, a poet, justify the hardest Islamism, on the ground, that well, they don’t side with civilization (basically). He called me “uncouth” for quoting the Qur’an’s astounding violence and hatred.

      We have seen this before: hatred against the government becomes one against civilization. That’s how Rome fell.

      Clintons and Obama used the state as their own piggy bank. To be elected some more. That’s ultimate corruption. Debt used that way is a calamity. While Obama is paying Buffet with taxpayer dollars of Obamacare, and countless health care “insurers”, the Air Force came out with a declaration, 2 days ago, that it needed 30,000 more personel, right away, just to function as it’s supposed to.

      Some of the most important planes (B52 Ds carrying nukes) are more than 50 years old. The F35 can’t do most of what it was supposed to do (cheap air supremacy: it’s neither supreme, nor cheap…) Not good, as it’s supposed to replace ALL planes (Harriers, F18, F15, F16, F22, and in Europe, Tornadoes, and Typhoons… Laughable…)

      Debt, WW2 style, was an investment. Debt, Obama Clinton, Silva/Dilma Rousseff style, is a corruption… The case of Japan is in between…

      • Lovell Says:

        Hello Patrice, wishing you a happy new year too.

        Nearly half of US Treasury debt is held by pension funds of all sorts including that of Social Security which alone owns $2.8 trillion worth of treasuries making it the largest creditor of the federal gov’t. Confiscating those savings by retirees may not come across as too appealing for many folks.

        Again, I would like to emphasize that the US is a fully monetarily sovereign country. It issues debt in the same currency that it alone has the ability to create, so the chance of defaulting is totally out of question. US bonds are not considered the safest asset in the world for nothing.That’s not true for member countries of the EC which have given up their own currencies in favor of the euro.

        Another beautiful thing about being monetarily sovereign is that the federal gov’t doesn’t even have to issue debt anymore to fund its spending. Sadly though, most members of US congress refuse to acknowledge this reality and are instead going along with the charade perpetuated by plutocratic owners of America and their accomplices in mainstream media that public spending for public good must be constrained within bookkeeping limits just like that of an ordinary household or individual which is a total lie given the modern nature of federal gov’t finances.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I agree about the sovereignty thing.
          In case of EU, the interests are even lower on French and German bonds, than on US bonds, because everybody knows the EU is just the Franco-German empire, so they are sovereign (although they may whine disingenously as if they were not).

          What happened with Rome is that, repeating default through several means, including hyper inflation, broke the trust (other things broke the trust too, including highway robbery, which was endemic, after Christian taught presenting the other cheek was more moral than making robbers dance on a cross for a few days, mulling the rror of their ways…).

          By relaunching inflation, debt can be alleviated… and will be…

  4. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, i have hardly overcame the hangover of the new eve party (I hate champagne) , but have to comment to your article.
    The economists under suspicious supervision discovered during the twenties century the connection between government debts and the Money. This understanding enabled the historical decision of the Nixon era to disconnect the US Dollar from its golden foundation. Since then money lost its value as expression of a commodity value, and rather became a central tool for economic policy.
    Money has in principle two economic functions. The first is to be a scale measuring relative value of items created and marketed among the people, and the second, to be a security for keeping and if possible with small addition the purchase power value for the future. The cumulative value of money ownership exchange , or the aggregative value of money flow by definition have to be equivalent to the aggregative product value flow. (products include services and merchandise, what in its potentiality can be consumed or thrown to the dust bin, like all the Christmas presents:). So the manipulation with the value of the money flow is crucial for economic activity volume. If the potential capacity of the economy is overflowed by the money flow value, necessarily the product prices will grow, or inflation will happen. To influence the value of money flow in the economy the government can increase or decrease the budget deficit, and by that increase or decrease its aggregative debt. The more flexible way to influence the value of money flow in the economy is by monetary policy its major instrument is interest rate in the economy, that influences the volume of investments and the tendency to consume now or postpone the consumption for the future.
    Traditionally it was excepted that the interest rate is major tool to influence economic activity, so when the bust came at 2008 the interest rate was flatted in the US and Europe, hoping that it will cause a substantial increase in the demand for consumption, and in parallel inflation, that would decrease the real value of the debts, the governments, corporations, banks and private households have, and with it the economy will return to equilibrium of economic growth. But it didn’t happen and it is a big question why. To my opinion the answer is in several issues. The first is the increased life expectancy of the people, whose savings in long term pension funds was planned for a shorter life expectancy, so in principle they are in deficit. To overcome this deficit, people in pension age or close to it, the fastest growing population sector in the world, increased their savings. Add to it the debt shock of the private households, that emerged with the 2008 economic crisis, and degradation of the middle class income, that damaged the income of the largest part of the population and you have a perfect explanation why there is no increased demand for consumption and with it inflation, even if the Government debt and with it the potential money in the economy grew with no precedent.
    I understand the fear of most of the people from the future developments, when the mountains of money accumulated because of the government deficit will suddenly flood the economy. It may happen, and it will be damaging mainly to those who hold their savings in some form of savings. Sorry the pensioners again. But this problem can be solved, if the government will take responsibility to this sector of the society. It will be just, politically popular, and with very little impact on the economy. After all what will be the occupation of most of the people in the future, when the AI and the robotics will take over the production of merchandise and services? Taking care of the elderly population, who need human touch, what the robots still can’t provide.
    Other phenomenon i would like to mention is the changing position, function and attribute of money with relation to the economy. If historically with the industrialization and urbanization of the world population, growing parts of economy introduced money exchange in almost every economic activity, (no self produced consumers items as in the pre-modern agrarian societies), this trend goes thru sudden dramatic change. Today many products are purchased on the internet without or with very little payment, sometime donations. Other phenomenon is possibility of investments into self producing energy equipment, with the new efficiency of battery and photovoltaic cells, etc.
    I would add one more issue, the money with no government influence, as bit-coin, that by now is marginal but in growing trend, threatens the very foundations of the existing monetary system, based on government monopoly on the money creation.
    My conclusion; To see the accumulated government deficit as the major macroeconomic problem, the US and the world leaders have to cope with is a very narrow view.
    I am aware that this simple model i described doesn’t take in account the influence of the ex-national territory influences on the money flow and money variables as interest rate and the economic activity of the products, still i believe it gives reasonable picture about the connection between the government deficit and the economy.

  5. Linnea Christiani Says:

    … Russian interference in the election is relevant

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: