Apple now has more cash than the U.S. government

108 Comments

“Steve Jobs is now more liquid than Uncle Sam,” Matt Hartley reports for The Financial Post. “Tt became a fact as of Thursday afternoon — the world’s largest technology company now has more cash on hand than the most powerful democracy on Earth has spending room.”

“As Republicans and Democrats continue to work towards a compromise to the country’s debt ceiling crisis, the U.S. Treasury Department said on Thursday that Washington now has a total operating balance of only US$73.768-billion,” Hartley reports. “Meanwhile, Apple currently boasts a cash reserve of US$75.876-billion, as of its most recent quarterly earnings report at the end of June.”

Hartley reports, “Apple’s market capitalization currently stands at US$363.25-billion, making it the second largest company on the planet, after Exxon Mobil.”

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “MacDust” for the heads up.]

108 Comments

      1. Actually, neither Bush nor Obama added anything to federal spending. Check the constitution, and the vote against your congressman or senator if he voted to take more of your money.

        -jcr

        Reply

      2. Yes, but what will raising the debt ceiling do? Certainly not get America out of debt! Like the old saying goes, ” the only way to make sure a sailor doesn’t spend any money is to run him outta money.” We need to stop spending or we’ll just be prolonging the inevitable – the collapse of the American economy.

        Reply

        1. Wrong. We need to start spending on our crumbling infastructure which will also create lots of high paying jobs.

          Spending is not the problem, it’s too little meaningful spending and the Bush tax cuts.

        2. Your claim is absolutely false. Increasing government spending to bolster the economy (Keynsian economics) has never worked. Studies have shown that FDR in doing so prolonged the great depression.

          Instead the opposite should be enacted, drop taxes dramatically, especially corporate, capital gains, and death taxes. You will see money flood the economy.

          Also don’t enact Obamacare and don’t keep threatening to meddle with the financial landscape. These changes chase uncertainty which stifles business, growth and entrepreneurs.

        3. Trickle down economics doesn’t work. Plain and simple. Just think about it logically – who is going to spend more money when they get it, the rich person who has everything he needs already or the poor person who needs to buy food and clothing?

        4. And in fact, this article is proof that your theory doesn’t work in real life. Apple is hoarding cash like nobody’s business! Imagine giving them more of a tax break…

        5. @reality check

          Unless you think apple keeps it’s cash in a giant scrooge mcduck money bin, then apple keeps its money in the bank which lends it out to people who invest to try and create wealth.

          I’m sick of this idea people have got that spending is good and saving is bad. It should be moderate spending is good and saving is better.

        6. Ray;

          Except that banks AREN’T lending it out – that’s the crux of the whole problem since the crash in ’08. Even when they got a huge influx of your cash, they just hoarded it. Borrowing money today is harder than it has been in decades.

          I’ve got a six figure salary, credit rating well over 700, little credit card debt, and yet even the bank with the mortgage on my rental property (my wife owns the house we live in, and has the mortgage exclusively) won’t re-finance my loan.

          No, this country doesn’t have spending problems, we’ve got a revenue problem because millions of formerly productive citizens who used to have jobs AND PAID TAXES, aren’t paying taxes anymore, cause THEY DON’T HAVE JOBS ANYMORE!!

          Add to that the wealthy that aren’t paying taxes either, and that explains the debt when seen in the light of two off-the-budget wars and what we had to spend to try to get ourselves back on track.

          We’d be in MUCH better shape if the banks had actually loaned out all that money we gave them, so businesses could have kept from laying people off!

        7. The banks aren’t lending money except to the lowest risk borrowers. The Federal Reserve has been artificially keeping interest rates low. If the free market would decide the interest rate, then the banks would lend the money. It may cost you more, but at least they would lend it to you.

        8. At Reality Check,
          You say think logically? Follow this logic: a rich person gets money for their work, they put it to use in the stock market, the set up businesses, they deposit it in the bank to earn interest, or the create more jobs by hiring someone. The money is used throughout the economy in each of these cases. If the rich person kept out of circulation under a mattress, that would be bad for the economy, but it would not be a wise choice for the use of that money.

          Do yourself a favor read the book Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, it will change your life as it did mine.

        10. The problem is that too many people without any savings are spending recklessly. Spend only if you have the money and don’t think that credit cards are giving you the freedom to go on a spending binge. This is the greatest fallacy that the banks have foisted upon the public.

      3. Bush was in office 4x longer than Obama, moron. Not only that, but you’re wrong. Bush added $4 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has already added more than $4 trillion in his 2+ years.

        Reply

        1. Uh, no, over half of that was bailout money, which Bush signed just before he left. And the TARP funds were the result of a bipartisan effort to keep banks and others, like GM, from going out of business.

          That wasn’t reckless spending. Most of the spending by Obama, as a matter of fact, has been under Continuing Resolutions set at levels close to previous year levels, with little real increase. Many Agencies have seen the need to cut back because of higher prices – especially gas and energy costs eating up larger shares of budgets than previous years.

        2. rwahrens, you are not telling the truth. Obama and his Democrat friends Reid and Pelosi added over $800 billion in “stimulus” that ended up doing nothing. They thereafter never passed a budget so as to perpetuate the higher spending levels hoping that the American people wouldn’t notice. They did notice and the 2010 elections showed what they wanted. At this point blaming Bush or Republicans rather than Democrats just shows that this is political theater for you. In reality this is a fight to keep our country solvent. We need to get our spending under control.

        3. No, you’ve got it wrong. That TARP was a bipartisan effort.

          What “higher spending levels”? A Continuing Resolution just extends spending levels from previous years, and does not hike the numbers. I’ve worked for the government for years, and have had to watch our Agency keep to previous levels throughout this whole recession.

          There is no spending problem at the level you’d like to have people believe. It is a twin issue – spending AND revenue.

          Part of the trouble has been that revenue is down also because of the millions of folks out of work that are NO LONGER PAYING TAXES – because they don’t have a job any more.

          Stop inventing problems like the debt and start passing legislation designed to get people back to work! Then the revenue will pick back up as they get back to work and start paying taxes again.

  2. CNN Poll: Americans Favor Cut, Cap And Balance Plan By 2-1 Margin

    Sixty-three percent of Democrats back the House bill. The least supportive age demographic is 50-64YOs at 62/37; the least supportive regional demographic is the Midwest at 61/39. Even those who express opposition to the Tea Party supports it 53/47.

    In other words, it’s a clean sweep. Simply put, there is no political demographic at all where the CCB/BBA doesn’t get majority support. The Balanced Budget Amendment on its own does even better. It gets 3-1 support (74/24), and except for those Tea Party opponents (56%) and self-professed liberals (61/37), doesn’t get below 70% support in any demographic.

    Source: CNN

    Reply

    2. You are one funny guy! You wingnuts have ling said that CNN was part of the “lame stream” media and were not to be trusted. Whatever you can get your hands on to distort the truth will work for you. What’s wrong? Did the problem in the UK finally convince you we were telling you the truth that Faux News was never a news organization to begin with and that they were nothing more than a farm club for the wingnut team? Now for the trut:. EVERY OTHER poll shows OVERWHELMING support for the BALANCED APPROACH that President OBama is putting forward and that is FACT!

      But at least we’ve got you watching a real news organization now. Your conversion from knuckle-dragger to Jedi is nearly complete, oh young one!

      Reply

    4. “Default is coming. The only argument that’s going on now is how to default, not send the checks out or just print the money. In all countries our size, they always print the money.”

      “They’re going to raise the debt limit, and then they’re going to print the money, and then they’ll default by inflation, and that’s much more dangerous than facing up to the facts of what’s happening today.” – Rep. Ron Paul

      Reply

    6. F10T12, I fail to understand why the GOP is so adamant about a balanced budget amendment. If the GOP really wanted to balance the budget, then why didn’t the GOP take strong steps in that direction under Reagan or W? Why did the GOP wait until 2010-11 to get holier than thou about spending?

      A lot of “liberals” were decrying the federal debt and annual deficits even as the purported fiscal conservatives were saying deficits don’t matter while jacking up defense spending and cutting taxes/revenues. The hypocrisy is far too thick.

      The so-called balanced approach of significant spending cuts combined with modest revenue increases (you can call repealing tax cuts “tax increases” if it makes you feel better) is the most logical way to bring the deficit spending under control. Ruling out any form of revenue increase is unreasonable given the fiscal challenges that we face as a nation. It is time for everyone to sacrifice.

      Reply

      1. Because it’s not the GOP pushing this. It’s the “extremist” Teaparty. The “Grand Old Party” is just that “OLD!”. These morons are wanting to compromise and send the country into bankruptcy rather than cut the spending and take care of business now. Again another person enjoying the political theater and not caring about what happens to this country.

        Reply

      2. Yeah that’s it. Show that your side has no valid or reasonable argument, evidenced by your ad hominem attack. “If we can’t make more sense than them, or have a better plan, just call them inbreds!” Brilliant.

        Reply

      1. Good.

        The only sane people in DC are putting their foot down and saying “Stop the insanity!”

        It about fscking time.

        Boehner is a RINO. He’s part of the problem, not part of the solution. He’d better watch out or he’ll be one of the many who’ll be out of a job next.

        Reply

        2. Says the idiot who doesn’t even grasp the difference between the deficit and the debt.

          Do us all a favor, don’t vote if you don’t know WTF is going on.

    3. Uh, don’t forget that the government is taking money in and paying it out constantly, getting money from payroll deductions almost daily from over a hundred million people, and it has taken Apple a number of years of saving to reach this level of cash on hand.

      This really not a fair comparison at all, and means even less.

      Reply

  7. You are one funny guy! You wingnuts have ling said that CNN was part of the “lame stream” media and were not to be trusted. Whatever you can get your hands on to distort the truth will work for you. What’s wrong? Did the problem in the UK finally convince you we were telling you the truth that Faux News was never a news organization to begin with and that they were nothing more than a farm club for the wingnut team? Now for the truth:. EVERY OTHER poll shows OVERWHELMING support for the BALANCED APPROACH that President Obama is putting forward and that is FACT!

    But at least we’ve got you watching a real news organization now. Your conversion from knuckle-dragger to Jedi is nearly complete, oh young one!

    Reply

    1. “that is FACT!”

      Wrong. It’s a poll, which can be heavily skewed depending on how and where you ask questions.

      As many have said, There’s lies, damn lies and stats to prove it all. All you have to do is look at all the companies crowing about their service resulting in their customers being the *most satisfied* and you know … it’s all lies.

      Reply

      1. Funny how the majority of those polls remarkably show the same thing. Fact or poll one thing is clear: US citizens OVERWHELMING support the President’s side of the argument. Right now Republicans are seen as the impediment to ending the nonsense and are also seen as ThE cause of the problem.

        Reply

  8. When President George H.W. Bush left office in early 1993, the debt was over $4 trillion. Clinton’s eight years in office took it to nearly $6 trillion, despite those fleeting budget surpluses. When George W. Bush finished his two terms, during which Islamic terrorists attacked the country, leveling NYC’s World Trade Center and severely damaging the Pentagon, with the loss of thousands of lives, the debt had pushed through the $10 trillion mark.

    A celebrated national debt “clock” near Times Square had to be rebuilt to allow for the extra digit.

    In just 2 1/2 years under Obama, the debt has grown to where it stands today: $14.27 trillion.

    Reply

        2. Hey dummy, the debt is the total of all the government’s years of accumulated debts, all through history until today.

          The deficit is a single year’s shortfall of income vs. spending. This year’s deficit will add to the total debt. Zeesh.

      4. Get your facts straight! Republicans controlled Congress a few years after America realized they hired a philandering hayseed from Arkansas! Newt and the boys dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to sign welfare reform to aid in balancing the budget. Clinton told his supporters who were distraught at no more free wealth redistribution that he would fix it later.

        http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×7554020

        Reply

      5. History lesson (you obviously need one)

        At the end of Clinton’s term a projected “budget surplus” existed, and there was a national debt. The big debate in the Congress at that time was “how to spend the projected budget surplus” – give it back to taxpayers (lower taxes), or pay down part of the national debt. And then 9/11 occurred, economy took a strong hit, defense spending increased, and budget surplus went “bye bye”.

        Here’s the run-up of the debt and annual interest cost to fund the debt (pretty sobering) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt

        Remember too, Bush tax cuts have added to the debt even during Obama’s term. Same with the Iraq/Afghan wars, and changes to Medicare. So while debt has risen under Obama, a good chunk of the runup comes from actions of Bush/Congress prior to Obama’s election in 2008. This graph illustrates this carryover effect well:

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

        Reply

    2. Pease go do some research and get your facts straight. Clinton left Bush with a surplus: FACT.

      Baby Bush blew through the surplus so badly he was too cowardly to include the cost of 2 wars and a prescription drug plan in his budget, NONE of which were paid for. FACT.

      The banking collapse happened on his watch, the bailout plan was his baby and added even MORE to his off-book debt. FACT.

      Even after continuing the war, bailing out the auto industry, and extending the Bush tax xuts that started us in this decline, Obama hasn’t added HALF of the amount baby BUsh did. FACT.

      Reply

        1. Not confused at all. Clinton left Bush a budget surplus and no amount of obfuscation or denying on the part of wingnuts can change that! Bush NEVER produced a surplus (debt, budget or otherwise). The US, like most of the industrialized world, will always have debt. I KNOW the difference. Do you?

        2. Again, as “Actual Reality” has explained multiple time above, when Clinton left office, the U.S. federal debt was $6 trillion.

          That Newt and The First Republican Revolution forced him into slight surpluses that amounted to drops in the debt ocean for a couple years is meaningless.

        3. LOLOLOL!

          Clinton had the guts Reagan and papa Bush never had! Newt may have “forced” him but he cut many programs favored by wingnuts too…and cut them deeply! AND he got the rich to pay more. Newt couldn’t protest without looking like the hypocrite everyone knew him to be.

          And don’t bother with that tired line about the rich paying the majority of taxes in this country. Their INCOME rate may be the highest in the country but the rich don’t EARN income, their money comes from INVESTMENTS and they pay CAPITAL GAINS tax, the rate of which is LOWER than ANY income tax rate. It’s the middle class that pays all the income taxes. Do YOU know the difference?

          I can’t wait for our iCal date in 2012!

        1. That’s the best you can do? Really? No stats, charts, figures or graphs to show how stupid I am or how easily manipulated I am? Good one!!

          That best part of you dripped down your mother’s leg (probably intelligence since you’re soooo lacking). I can show you the stain on the floor I’d you want proof SON!

        2. Clinton left Bush with a $6 trillion national debt. FACT.

          Obama has added $4.27 trillion to the U.S. National debt in 2+ years while Bush added $4 trillion over 8 years. FACT.

        3. C’mon man, you’re boring me and looking stupid in the process. Add in the costs of his wars, prescription plan and loss of revenue from his idiotic tax cuts and then come back and sing your song. Read my post above about his COWARDLY accounting practices. Rush and Beck will never let you guys know about or speak of that.

          Try harder! Put an honest effort into this discussion and quit being so lazy.

  10. “Apple now has more cash than the US government”… meh.

    pbfttt… Big Deal! I HAVE MORE CASH THAN THE US GOVERNMENT!

    If the government had money, they could pay off the debts and obligations they incurred under both parties who controlled Congress over the years and of both parties who occupied the Presidency and we wouldn’t be talking about national debt and deficits now would we?

    Reply

  14. “making it the second largest company on the planet”

    Yes, the largest technology company in the world, but I thought Apple was only the second largest “U.S.” publicly-traded company, not the world.

    Do I remember that wrong?

    Reply

    1. I think it is second largest in world if they are talking about publicly-owned or private companies. There are state-owned companies that are larger. A Chinese oil company, for example, may be much larger; but since it is state-owned it is not included in some comparisons.

      Reply

  15. I wouldn’t be teasing Uncle Sam if I were you, especially at this state of the economy. A bit part of how Uncle Sam makes money is taxing its citizens. Besides, Steve Jobs is not more cash liquid, Apple Inc. is.

    Reply

    1. Dude, surgery is rationed here too. The system we use is called Capitalism, and it is rationed by determining who has the money to pay for it, either with your own cash or a good insurance company. (which again, you pay for out of your pocket.)

      In both systems, people go without needed health care – the main difference is in the intrinsic fairness of either system. In Britain, the poor have a better chance of getting that care than they do here. Here, insurance companies have a far greater say in who does and who doesn’t get surgery than the government ever will, even under the new law.

      From the kinds and numbers of complaints about insurance companies, I am not sure that this situation is any better than Britain’s is.

      Reply

      1. I know someone who was a nurse who worked in a doctors office and the doctor had to work at the hospital at times just to make up the difference. Its pretty much a failing business as a regular office visiting doctor when almost all of his clients were on medicare. Not that it is stated anywhere specific or ever would be stated to public… but im almost certain that with every surgery there is an analysis of age and health. A 23 year old needs a new heart…. but so does the 70 year old who is retired. As unfair as it is.. there is a better chance for that 23 year old since he will continue to work and put into the system, even though for the last probably 50+ years that 70 year old has worked probably far harder than that 23 year old… but he’s retired and only taking from the system now.. Its pretty much just unfair and unethical.. but such is life

        Reply

        1. But how fair is it that the 23 year old doesn’t get the new heart just because he’s broke?

          One can “suppose” all kinds of scenarios to make it sound as fair or unfair as you wish – or even find real scenarios that are also as fair or not, as you wish, to fit your viewpoint. That isn’t the issue.

          I was pointing out that while Britain has their system (and other European countries do too, some are better than others), we also have ours, and both have advantages and drawbacks. Ours isn’t some magic, wonderful, fairies and pixie dust kind of system that somehow keeps us all healthy and uses some kind of pixie dust to make it fair and easy, as the right wing would have you think it was before “Obamacare” came along.

          It isn’t, its got warts and flaws, and lots of people get left behind when the healthcare train leaves the station.

          The only difference between our system and others is just how fair it is, and one can pick and choose anecdotal scenarios to make ’em look however you want.

          Folks like First…, above, try to make it sound as if the new law will tank our system and somehow make us all go broke. Well, I’ve got news for you, my healthcare has been going up in premiums for decades – there hasn’t been a year when it DIDN’T go up! And that at the same time when it has been chopping benefits right and left, too.

          This law has added any number of good benefits to my plan – including letting my 24 year old daughter back onto my plan for another two years, which will save her boatloads of money.

          Republicans can take their repeal idea and shove it up their backsides – without lubrication!

        2. no matter what happens with healthcare… this entire country.. and even world will tank. Its pretty sad to see this country get built from the ground up over a few hundred years and become a super power and the greatest nation ever… and now its pretty much crap.. Sure its better than a lot of countries but I feel we’ve been in a decline since after WW2. No matter what we do every politician is out for themselves or atleast the majority are. I don’t fault them for it.. it seems the bigger you get the greed kicks in and its almost like a high. All you want is more more more. Pay for this and I’ll vote you in for that. It happens im sure all around the world and not just here. Health care should be the least of our worries… how about kids shooting up schools? violence on the streets, kids getting kidnapped… Not to get religious but I remember doing some research before how this was founded and it was all based on GOD. Many will argue there should be freedom of religion and not in schools…. well look what it did when they had it! At the very least it taught kids morals, to obey the law and their parents and be good people, chewing gum in class was probably the worst thing ever back then. Now kids bring guns and teachers are handing out condoms and birth control to their students. In one case it should be the parents doing this.. but since everyone puts their kids on meds for every form of ADD there is… its called discipline… spank the damn kid once in a while.. they learn quick. Too much lack of respect for adults these days from kids…

          anyways didn’t mean to get in a rant.. I think I went off topic a little.. but hey this entire article is off topic!

        3. Hate to tell you, but your “research” is just a bit off. This government, with the Constitution, was founded as a SECULAR one. Read the damn thing and find anything you can about religion, and there are only two instances, and both restrict religion to the private sphere and out of government hands.

          And what “morals’, by the way? The ones allowing clerics to molest kids? Or the ones allowing clerics to preach against gays and then go bang a gay prostitute?

        4. research the founding fathers… they were all christians… NOT catholics. I’m 100% against the catholic faith.. or religion.. whatever it is. Preaching against gay people is now I believe a hate crime.. which is beyond stupid. Each religion preaches what they believe based on the bible they have. Pastors need to learn to preach if they are bashing anyone for anything they do. In many places one of the bibles declares “love thy neighbor” and not judging others. Many fail to accomplish that.

          This country did have morals, even if it didn’t have to do with religion. Kids actually respected their parents and elders and adults use to know how to be parents. If you even dare thinking of spanking your kid and someone hears about it they are likely to call DSS and have you shipped off to jail and put the kid in a home. Or better yet the kid will call the cops on you because you punished him for not listening to you at all. I’d love to ban doctors for giving meds to kids with ADD without them first being evaluated and their parents being evaluated. Handicap parking is a whole other story.. aggrivates the hell out of me that almost anyone can be on a disability. There is a reason the handicap parking sign has a wheelchair… its for those who cant walk or have problems walking. I know and have seen many with their little parking pass to get front row at a super market and shop… or even the mall. Some walk even faster than me and I walk rather fast, so what gives them the right to take up a spot where someone in a wheel chair (like my ex gf) can park. This country frustrates me but im sure its mostly the same through all the world, or are we the only ones with a welfare system that a majority take advantage of.

        5. Who said anything about catholics? It happens all across the religious spectrum!

          And the religious affiliations of the Founders do not matter when you read the Constitution and see NOTHING allowing the government to back a particular religion, in fact, the First Amendment specifically forbids it! Because regardless of their affiliations, a majority of them voted for the passing of the Constitution, and worked for its ratification in their respective States.

          You can talk about morality all you want, but the fact is, that most people get their moral values from society as a whole, not a specific religion. This is very adequately proven by the fact that most European countries are now largely secular as to the religious affiliations of their populations, but in fact, their statistics on crime are MUCH lower, per capita, than ours.

          Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

        6. Yeah, I like the Dutch system my family is under now. (I have lived in USA, UK, and now Netherlands). The UK system unfortunately seems to be wallowing under the weight of its own bureaucracy — the health system itself has to deal with all the admin and allocations, etc.

          Under the Dutch system, there seems to be a nice blend of responsibilities by the govt, corporate insurance companies and the health care service workers themselves…

          The health care workers provide good, efficient health care — my local doctor can send me to a specialist at the nearest hospital, and I could be in there the next day.

          The private corporate insurance companies continue to do what they do best — make money and pay for operations.

          So, how is it nationalized health care? Because the govt. simply sets some basic mandatory health care plans that the insurance companies must all provide to every family that wants it. You can shop around, but you know they must give the basics for about the same, maybe differing by a few euros per month. Basic for a family is about 200 per month for a family. Done. Kids get basic dental. Dental work has set price structure. You can opt in and out for various things from year to year. Want something particular done? Get a rider of a couple of euros per month for a year or two to cover it.

          Of course the Govt. is also free to give certain rebates back to low income or qualifying families — you pay the set 200 per month, but the govt. might put something back in your family’s bank account every quarter. Efficient and a pleasure to do business with. In NL over the years we have had checks in the mail now and then from the govt. that we were not in any way expecting. Finding out what you qualify for in UK, or getting anything back that you were supposed to is like pulling teeth. In the UK, the left hand doesn’t seem to know what the right hand is doing — it’s just too much for the govt to take on. (of course, the whole population of NL is about the population of just the greater London area).

  17. To be correct, Apple is second most valued publicly traded company, not just second valued company.

    Oil company of Arab Emirates estimated to cost up to $800 billion; some other companies worth crazy money, too,

    Reply

  19. What’s really amazing to me is that ALL the cash Apple accumulated since Steve Jobs returned and turned things around… it’s considered a VERY large sum. And some people criticize Apple for “hoarding it.”

    BUT, that mighty sum is barely enough to run the U.S. Government for the next three or four days. There is definitely a sickness in Washington, and sadly, the ONLY cure may be to run out of money and be forced to make across-the-board cuts in EVERYTHING, until spending is in balance with revenue.

    Who needs a balanced budget amendment, when the current situation already forces spending to be in balance with revenue? The Federal Spending Limit was put in place to LIMIT spending, not to conveniently “reset” it to a higher value every time things get close again. For once, it’s not so “convenient” and some hard choices are forced on the political elite.

    Think about it… If it’s easy to keep raising the “limit,” there is really NO limit. Having a “limit” would just be a farce. It looks bad now, but things are actually working as they should, and I think the U.S. will ultimately become stronger because of the current “statement” situation.

    Reply

    1. In reality, the debt limit was instituted around WWI, as Congress at the time did not pass detailed budgets, but allocated money and the President then determined where in the budget it would go and how it would be spent. The debt limit was a way of controlling the President and how he was spending.

      We are the only First world, industrialized nation besides Norway to have a debt limit. None of the other major countries in the world do.

      Reply

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tags: , ,