Will the U.S National Debt Ceiling be raised?Or will U.S default?

[AGENDA21]

According to this article U.S has gone over the national debt ceiling..not sure if its the first time this has happened.

http://www.safehaven.com/article-4511.htm

US national debt 'ceiling' stands at $8,184 billion.

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

According to the national debt clock,above...the debt stands at..

$ 8,196,527,537,587,.41

Which is a few billion over....

[Shortyfuse]

1. Clinton tragedy

Wish we had that back. Remember when he put the huge, well lit signs beside the road , posting the national debt as it grew. People had to look at it every day and compare it to their everyday life.

[AGENDA21]

2. Do you know

if theres a time limit within which the debt ceiling must be raised?

[Shortyfuse]

3. Well heck

Of course I did not mean tragedy I ment Stra.

[Mnemosyne]

4. It is $8.196 TRILLION dollars! They call

it 8,196 thousand billion to make it sound smaller!:grr:

Let's not keep letting them pull this crap. A TRILLION is way more than a billion!

In peace and hope,
V

[AGENDA21]

5. Yes,your right its trillions in debt...

[Mnemosyne]

10. But pocket change to these

evil warmongers. How disgusting when people are starving and homeless. :grr:

In peace and still hopeful,
V

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Actually I Disagree With That

The bigger (or smaller fractionally) a number gets, the harder it is to imagine. People identify with the concept of billions, because most people know the identity of the rich and famous BILLIONSAIRES. Lots of folks know that Oprah is a billionaire. Lots of folks know Bill Gates has over $40 billion.

So, if we represent the figure as 8,700 BILLION, people can cope with the fact that this debt load is more than 8,000 times what a really rich person even has. Think "Wow, that 200 times what Bill Gates has!") The term trillion has almost no meaning to the average person. It's an almost inconceivably large number.

Math geeks like me grasp the significance of very large numbers, but often it's because even we look at it as groups of groups. (For instance, a trillion is a MILLION MILLION.)

I think it's a very good idea to represent the debt the way they did. I think it gets more attention than an abstractly high figure.

The Professor

[Mnemosyne]

8. I respectfully disagree Professor.

Most people that I know are seriously angered when they hear a billion, but about choke when they hear trillion. That number really hits them in their gut in a way that a billion just can't anymore. Maybe I just don't know enough average people though. :)

In peace and hope, still!
V

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Think About It More Carefully

You're already angered. You don't need the message further distilled. The concept of making the mantissa a large number is well known in industry. For instance, people report to the EPA that their emissions are 0.xxx ppm per million, rather than xxx part per billion. The zero-point something seems smaller, even though they're mathematically identical.

The point here is how to we best convey the impact of the numbers to the typical american. Showing them $8,671 BILLION, could have more impact than $8.671 Trillion, because that 4 digits before the decimal place is a big number already. Then we have to multiply by a billion!

It's a matter of how we get the message out.
The Professor

[Mnemosyne]

12. When put in that manner I do

see your point much more clearly.

You just caused a :think: moment for me Professor! Thank you. :toast:

In peace and still hoping,
V

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Cool!

We were reading the same book and the same chapter, but we were on different pages. Now, we're on the same page. That's outstanding.
The Professor

[Mnemosyne]

14. This is so funny Professor, but today

Harry Reid was speaking and kept referring to the debt at $8.2 trillion!

It is different when written rather than spoken. imo What is your take on the effect of it as spoken rather than the written word? I hadn't considered that aspect until Reid spoke today. It relates so well!

I feel that the intensity of the effect would first be influenced by whether someone is more of a left or right brain learner. Obviously a left-brainer would be more affected by the order of words on the page. Or am I heading the wrong direction in this thinking?

What do you have? I'm open to education!:)

V

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Answers: Yes. No.

Yes, we'll just raise the debt ceiling. No, we will not default. This is reactionary thinking.

The national debt is still a smaller percentage of total capitalization than the EU, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and so on and so on. There isn't a Latin American country whose Debt to Capital ratio is even close to the U.S.

This is so far from a default point, that it is preposterous to even consider it.

Think of it this way: When Brazil had their little economic escapade 15 years ago, they had a D/C ratio of nearly 0.75. And they didn't default. Sure, loans were restructured, and payment schedules lengthened. But they were never actually at the edge of default.

The United States D/C ratio is only about 0.4. And, the risk of these things is exponential. So, we're not even close to such economic catastrophe.

The Professor

[ComerPerro]

9. Debts don't have to be paid until a Democrat is in office

Don't you know that? That's the only time deficits matter.

Hell, in those cases, even a surplus isn't good enough.

[Gloria]

15. An economist speaking at the New America forum just said that

every morning, the head of the Federal Reserve has to get up and find $2 billion dollars (I think he said billion) just to keep the economy afloat....the two biggest sources of reserve--Bank of China, Bank of Japan....

[PassingFair]

16. If a debt ceiling falls in a forest...

and NO ONE REALLY GIVES A SHIT,
does the death of the middle-class
make a sound?

[burrowowl]

17. US defaulting

would really upset the World Bank!
And all the countries screwed by the WB.

[Swamp Rat]

18. The US will default, then start WWIII by nuking a few countries.

Who knows... we are through the looking glass. :hide: