Obama Wants to Raise The Debt Ceiling More Eh?

[s0me0nesmind1]

WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will renew his case for tax hikes on wealthy Americans to avert a year-end fiscal crunch and call for a smooth increase in the nation's borrowing limit in a speech to a business group on Wednesday, a White House official said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/obama-fiscal-cliff_n_2243001.html



Let's take a look in our history books, shall we boys and girls? How about this gem:

From Senator Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Predict: It IS failed leadership from Bush's turn. It is because of the Bush wars as well as Bush running us into debt. It is his fault and his failed leadership that caused Obama to do this. It isn't Obama's leadership that caused this...nope. Nope. He is painted into a corner and has no choice.

One question for those coming in stating this: When exactly will it become Obama's fault? I want to know when the previous administration cannot be blamed.

 

[Double Trouble]

It's time to take a stand. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling, shut it all down until the morons are forced to cut spending.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Predict: It IS failed leadership from Bush's turn. It is because of the Bush wars as well as Bush running us into debt. It is his fault and his failed leadership that caused Obama to do this. It isn't Obama's leadership that caused this...nope. Nope. He is painted into a corner and has no choice.

Where did you find the Democrat's/Left's talking points memo?

 

[MovingTarget]

Wants? No. Needs? Yes. The whole concept of a debt ceiling is a farce anyway.

But yes, GOP, go ahead and try to force another debt-ceiling showdown and tank our credit rating in the process. That worked so well the last time...

 

[SheHateMe]

It's time to take a stand. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling, shut it all down until the morons are forced to cut spending.

The problem is..nobody is going to agree to it...thats the damn problem! NOBODY wants to give us their grip on the $$$.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course he wants to raise the debt ceiling. You would have to be a complete and utter fool to not raise the debt ceiling. The only people who don't want to are too stupid to understand the consequences of their actions.

 

[Fern]

Raise it?

IIRC, last I heard was that he wanted to eliminate it altogether.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Raise it?

IIRC, last I heard was that he wanted to eliminate it altogether.

Fern

That would be the smartest move, yes. Quick, name another major industrialized country with a debt ceiling!

Right.

 

[Rainsford]

It's time to take a stand. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling, shut it all down until the morons are forced to cut spending.

Unfortunately that's not how the debt ceiling or spending work. The debt ceiling effectively covers borrowing for spending we've already authorized. In other words, any time someone suggests not raising the debt ceiling, they're basically saying we should refuse to pay for our spending. Not only is that much less responsible than borrowing to pay for spending, it would pretty much be the end of our economy. It's absurdly reckless, and if people understood the debate the Tea Party Republicans would have trouble getting elected dog catcher.

Obama wasn't wrong in 2006...raiding the debt ceiling IS an issue. But despite what the OP is suggesting, I doubt 2006 Obama thought the solution was REFUSING to raise the debt ceiling. The answer is getting control of the debt problem from a spending/revenue perspective. Increasing the debt ceiling is a symptom of the issue, not the cause...which is basically what Obama said back then.

 

[Fern]

That would be the smartest move, yes. Quick, name another major industrialized country with a debt ceiling!

Right.

I think the EU has fiscal limits in place. I haven't looked it up, but seems to me I most often hear about limits on deficits, which isn't any real difference.

Fern

 

[IBMer]

When did spending become just the President. Isn't congress also passing these bills? Why is it that all of a sudden this language of "Needing to be Lead" is being used by congressmen. Isn't is a separate branch of government? Does congress now answer to the executive branch and need to be lead by it?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Of course we need to keep going deeper into debt.

Both parties spend like drunken monkeys. Neither side wants real spending cuts to their favorite programs. If that was possible, the "fiscal cliff" wouldn't be looming.

Both parties voted for unfunded tax cuts.

 

[Bitek]

I think the EU has fiscal limits in place. I haven't looked it up, but seems to me I most often hear about limits on deficits, which isn't any real difference.

Fern

There is part of an EU treaty that says the signatories must keep deficits within 3% of GDP. Don't know of a debt limit.


Regardless, the OP is dumb. The debt limit has to be raised no matter what. Romney would of had to. Paul Ryan's plan would have had decades of deficits, if Superman was elected potus, he would have raised the debt limit.

I do not expect facts to stand in the way of a GOP hissy fit tho.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the EU has fiscal limits in place. I haven't looked it up, but seems to me I most often hear about limits on deficits, which isn't any real difference.

Fern

It's not the same thing at all, and the EU fiscal limits are very squishy. There is in fact only one other major industrialized nation on earth that has a debt limit, Denmark. It was just a bad idea from the start and in hindsight it was only a matter of time until an irresponsible political party decided to use it as a weapon.

Sadly Obama has no choice but to not give in to them on this because you can't allow irresponsible people to periodically endanger the full faith and credit of the country to get policies passed that they couldn't pass on their own. I imagine that Obama will simply bypass them on this because frankly I don't see what else he can do. They can't impeach him, so they would have to sue. That will hopefully take long enough for Obama to do what is necessary.

 

[werepossum]

It's time to take a stand. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling, shut it all down until the morons are forced to cut spending.

That's not really an option. The only option is to raise the debt ceiling quickly under Republicans, or astronomically quickly under Democrats. Even if we had a party that truly believed buying votes with borrowed money wasn't the optimum path to power, the American people wouldn't stand for it. We ARE Greece; we want what we want, and someone else - anyone else - needs to pay for it.

The progressives are in charge and they believe (or at least pretend to believe) that the federal government literally cannot borrow too much money because government spending is GOOD and government austerity, even austerity as in spending only 10% more than last year, is BAD. The proggies believe that no matter how much money we borrow, we can simply borrow even more money to make our debt payments, without ever crashing, as long as we don't ever appear to be reluctant to embrace more debt. We'd best all hope they are correct because we'll be at $20+ trillion by January 2017 and probably $40+ trillion by January 2025 no matter which party is in charge. If the proggies are wrong - and they certainly seem so to me - then our country is over, doomed to third world status, and the only question is how quickly we crash and burn. If the proggies are right, then we survive and might even prosper, though I doubt anyone really believes we can ever again prosper to historic levels. So as much as it pains us on the right, we need to hope the proggies are correct. This is our path, so let's all hope it doesn't collapse beneath our feet.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not really an option. The only option is to raise the debt ceiling quickly under Republicans, or astronomically quickly under Democrats. Even if we had a party that truly believed buying votes with borrowed money wasn't the optimum path to power, the American people wouldn't stand for it. We ARE Greece; we want what we want, and someone else - anyone else - needs to pay for it.

For the 100th time we are nothing like Greece.

The progressives are in charge and they believe (or at least pretend to believe) that the federal government literally cannot borrow too much money because government spending is GOOD and government austerity, even austerity as in spending only 10% more than last year, is BAD. The proggies believe that no matter how much money we borrow, we can simply borrow even more money to make our debt payments, without ever crashing, as long as we don't ever appear to be reluctant to embrace more debt. We'd best all hope they are correct because we'll be at $20+ trillion by January 2017 and probably $40+ trillion by January 2025 no matter which party is in charge. If the proggies are wrong - and they certainly seem so to me - then our country is over, doomed to third world status, and the only question is how quickly we crash and burn. If the proggies are right, then we survive and might even prosper, though I doubt anyone really believes we can ever again prosper to historic levels. So as much as it pains us on the right, we need to hope the proggies are correct. This is our path, so let's all hope it doesn't collapse beneath our feet.

What you just wrote has zero bearing on what progressives think. How is it that you are so consistently utterly delusional on what your political opponents want? Don't you think you would be able to more effectively oppose them if you attacked their actual policies instead of a fever dream?

Basically everyone agrees that austerity is a bad thing right now. Even the Republicans outside of the real crazies accept this. That's why everyone is talking about averting the 'fiscal cliff'. So... implicitly everyone accepts that deficit spending is the right thing to do right now.

 

[nehalem256]

So which $Trillion+ would you cut to balance the budget?

 

[werepossum]

For the 100th time we are nothing like Greece.



What you just wrote has zero bearing on what progressives think. How is it that you are so consistently utterly delusional on what your political opponents want? Don't you think you would be able to more effectively oppose them if you attacked their actual policies instead of a fever dream?

Basically everyone agrees that austerity is a bad thing right now. Even the Republicans outside of the real crazies accept this. That's why everyone is talking about averting the 'fiscal cliff'. So... implicitly everyone accepts that deficit spending is the right thing to do right now.

You say it has zero bearing on what progressives think, yet you've stated many, many times that there should be no debt limit, that government borrowing can never get too big (because government has the power to print money), and that the only reason our credit got downgraded was because Republicans were too slow to cave on raising the debt limit. How on Earth is this different from what I said?

And you and I cannot discuss austerity; that's another word for which we no longer have a common definition.

 

[fskimospy]

You say it has zero bearing on what progressives think, yet you've stated many, many times that there should be no debt limit, that government borrowing can never get too big (because government has the power to print money), and that the only reason our credit got downgraded was because Republicans were too slow to cave on raising the debt limit. How on Earth is this different from what I said?

And you and I cannot discuss austerity; that's another word for which we no longer have a common definition.

Saying there should be no debt limit does not mean that government borrowing can never get too big. I have also never said that government borrowing cannot get too big, in fact I have repeatedly and quite clearly stated the opposite. See what I'm talking about here? You're trapped in some sort of fever dream about what you believe progressives think, so you're flailing against ghosts. If you really don't like progressivism then go attack real things they do, not ghosts in your head.

I've probably had this conversation with you specifically on a number of occasions and yet here you are saying the same things again. What I have said is that the US cannot default unless we choose to and that control of our currency gives us leeway to enact expansionary fiscal policy. Nearly every time this has come up I have explicitly mentioned that such policy can have other bad effects such as inflation, but in the current circumstances that is not an issue. What I have also said is that in our current circumstances more deficit spending is good, which is hardly a controversial opinion among people who understand economics.

Neither of those things in any way translates to 'government borrowing can never get too big' and it would require a willful misrepresentation of what I have said in order to come to that conclusion.

If we do not have a common definition any longer it is because you are no longer using the term as it is understood by political scientists and economists. If that's the case, so be it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

All the liberal responses, yet none can answer for your own POTUS quote - which to be honest at this point you would go "Yes sir" as you hold his pecker while pissing on this nation's face.

Bee-you-tee-full

 

[Tom]

It's time to take a stand. Refuse to raise the debt ceiling, shut it all down until the morons are forced to cut spending.

that isn't what the debt ceiling is for.

Don't raise the debt ceiling and we default on our debts, most of which are owed to us, btw, not the Chinese.

Great plan.

 

[werepossum]

Saying there should be no debt limit does not mean that government borrowing can never get too big. I have also never said that government borrowing cannot get too big, in fact I have repeatedly and quite clearly stated the opposite. See what I'm talking about here? You're trapped in some sort of fever dream about what you believe progressives think, so you're flailing against ghosts. If you really don't like progressivism then go attack real things they do, not ghosts in your head.

I've probably had this conversation with you specifically on a number of occasions and yet here you are saying the same things again. What I have said is that the US cannot default unless we choose to and that control of our currency gives us leeway to enact expansionary fiscal policy. Nearly every time this has come up I have explicitly mentioned that such policy can have other bad effects such as inflation, but in the current circumstances that is not an issue. What I have also said is that in our current circumstances more deficit spending is good, which is hardly a controversial opinion among people who understand economics.

Neither of those things in any way translates to 'government borrowing can never get too big' and it would require a willful misrepresentation of what I have said in order to come to that conclusion.

If we do not have a common definition any longer it is because you are no longer using the term as it is understood by political scientists and economists. If that's the case, so be it.

Perhaps you can point me to some of those times where you've "repeatedly and quite clearly stated the opposite", which I assume would be that government borrowing can in fact get too big, and perhaps give me some indication of what that limit might be. In the mean time, I'll just point out that if "control of our currency gives us leeway to enact expansionary fiscal policy", then we can choose to do that without raising the debt limit by simply printing more money to pay our debts and finance our future spending rather than borrowing more money to pay our debts and finance our future spending. Given that, perhaps you can explain to me just how a lack of Republican enthusiasm for raising the debt ceiling is our big problem rather than our crushing debt and ever-increasing deficit. Surely ratings agencies are smart enough to know we "cannot default unless we choose to" so what's the problem?

 

[DaveSimmons]

yet none can answer for your own POTUS quote

Perhaps because it's blindingly obvious that it is "a failure of leadership" but that is not the same as "hahaha! Fartbama be bad president! derp!"

The failure is in both parties, and in the house, the senate and the POTUS. They all work together to disappoint us.

Obama: "Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children ..."

That's the collection of our nation's "leaders" not just the POTUS. And last time I checked, the president is not the one who has the power to originate spending bills.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps you can point me to some of those times where you've "repeatedly and quite clearly stated the opposite", which I assume would be that government borrowing can in fact get too big, and perhaps give me some indication of what that limit might be. In the mean time, I'll just point out that if "control of our currency gives us leeway to enact expansionary fiscal policy", then we can choose to do that without raising the debt limit by simply printing more money to pay our debts and finance our future spending rather than borrowing more money to pay our debts and finance our future spending. Given that, perhaps you can explain to me just how a lack of Republican enthusiasm for raising the debt ceiling is our big problem rather than our crushing debt and ever-increasing deficit. Surely ratings agencies are smart enough to know we "cannot default unless we choose to" so what's the problem?

There's a lot I'm going to explain here.

First, me saying the opposite of government deficits/debt can never be too big:

It really isn't.

Excessive deficits can create other problems for our country, like inflation. (although not in our current situation) You could say that spending is inflation constrained, and inflation CAN have a revenue component to it, but they are nowhere close to the same thing. That's one of the big reasons to spend big now and raise taxes for the future.

That is almost word for word what I'm saying here, and that was a year ago. See?

Secondly, we could most certainly print money instead of issuing debt. Why do you ask? As for why lack of Republican enthusiasm is the problem is that basically all economists agree that the US should continue to deficit spend in our current situation. The Republicans are trying to stop that, therefore they are a problem. Pretty simple, really.

Finally, the ratings agencies specifically mentioned a lack of faith in the US political process as one of the biggest reasons for the downgrade... ie: they know as well as we do that it is by definition impossible for the US to default unless it chooses to, they stated they were worried the US might choose to. (also, government debt can lose value due to inflation, etc.)

Simply put the US's debt is nowhere close to our largest problem right now. Furthermore, austerity would only make things worse, as evidenced by pretty much every country that's tried it in this crisis. Why anyone would want to follow such abject failure is beyond me.