Ronnie Raygun pissed in America's face 18 times when the debt limit was raised on his watch. I don't recall any rightist outrage back then.
http://occupy316.org/2011/07/14/past-increases-of-debt-ceiling-since-kennedy/
Last edited:
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
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.
Not according to Rightist when there is a "D" in the White House but when there is an "R" in the White house then they can spend money like drunken sailors look no further than with both Ronnie Raygun's and GWB's reign.
IM SORRY GOOD SIR, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE INCREDIBLY LOUD VOICE YELLING
"SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPER MAJORITY"
derp derp
I ask because if we can simply print money to pay our debts, then the debt ceiling is immaterial; if we don't want to default, we have the ability to avoid that regardless of the debt ceiling. But good post; I stand corrected. One question though; you specifically mentioned deficits can be a problem. How about debt? We currently owe more than our GDP, roughly 40% of which is already government spending and roughly 16% of which is deficit spending (counting all levels.) When these deficits do become a problem, how are we going to service that debt without totally destroying our economy? Should the rest of the world recover, or even just us, and Treasury bills need to rise to, say, 5% after inflation, how do we service our debt? We take away 16% of our economy just by eliminating the deficit spending, and just at 2012 levels of debt we'd need to take over 8% of our private sector GDP just to service our debt. Fast forward to 2016 and now our debt is at roughly double GDP assuming Obamacare works as promised and Obama gets no new spending approved in four years. Now we need almost 17% of our private sector GDP to service our debt, plus either 40% of private sector GDP to cover our non-borrowed government spending or more likely, 67% of private sector GDP to cover our current total federal government spending. Our entire private sector would have something like 16% left after funding government. How can that work? What happens if we get a truly inflationary period like the Carter Presidency where debt becomes 10%?There's a lot I'm going to explain here.
First, me saying the opposite of government deficits/debt can never be too big:
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.
I'd say both parties, the House, the Senate and the POTUS are all working together to give us what we want.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.
Just tell your kids to train for good government jobs.I see this discussion is pretty much the same as the other 100 threads discussing the deficit and debt ceiling in the past. Our country is permanently and irreparably screwed because like crack addicts we simply can't stop ourselves from overspending. The politicians don't want to stop, and the public doesn't want them to stop. We will continue down this road and future generations will inherit a shell of what this country once was. Makes me sad for my kids
Just tell your kids to train for good government jobs.
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.
Not familiar with the issue? Obama wants to be able to bypass congress and not have debt limit.... go forbid that if congress raises the debt limit yet again that it is tied to mandatory spending cuts as a condition of the raise.
Not familiar with the issue? Obama wants to be able to bypass congress and not have debt limit.... go forbid that if congress raises the debt limit yet again that it is tied to mandatory spending cuts as a condition of the raise.
Obama SHOULD be able to bypass Congress and have no debt limit because although it's the Treasury Department's responsibility to borrow the money that pays for the deficit, it's Congress that authorizes the deficit spending in the first place. Having the executive branch go the Congress to ask permission to borrow money to cover spending Congress authorized makes zero sense if you ask me.
spot on with that . .
But, the fact that we hit the "debt ceilnig" every 6 months should be a wakeup call that we are SPENDING TOO MUCH...
my biggest irk thusfar is that the democrats want to give spending cuts 'over 10 years', but they're not even spending cuts, they're reductions in the spending increases . . . which doesn't mean those can't be put back in later...
the republicans actually have a good idea in straightening out the tax-code to not raise revenue but i fear they won't go far enough. that and the tax increases are NOW, not spread over 10 years..
..it doesn't balance out
Not at all. That's exactly why the debt ceiling was designed this way, to make the nation pay attention every 6-12 months to the debt again. It's an entirely artificial limitation designed to raise awareness, of course it runs out every 6 months. It's not like we're dramatically increasing our expected borrowing every six months, it's just when the artificial limits on the thing kick in.spot on with that . .
But, the fact that we hit the "debt ceilnig" every 6 months should be a wakeup call that we are SPENDING TOO MUCH...
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.
Every revenue figure you get is always over 10 years both from Democrats and Republicans.
Not at all. That's exactly why the debt ceiling was designed this way, to make the nation pay attention every 6-12 months to the debt again. It's an entirely artificial limitation designed to raise awareness, of course it runs out every 6 months. It's not like we're dramatically increasing our expected borrowing every six months, it's just when the artificial limits on the thing kick in.
It's not the same thing at all
-snip-
denmark is a major industrialized nation? can houston be too? houston's bigger.
i don't like this new way to express figures because no congress is bound by prior acts of congress. first i heard it was the the first time obama was trying to let the bush cuts expire on rich people. because $75 billion doesn't sound like much but $750 billion sounds like real money.
Obama SHOULD be able to bypass Congress and have no debt limit because although it's the Treasury Department's responsibility to borrow the money that pays for the deficit, it's Congress that authorizes the deficit spending in the first place. Having the executive branch go the Congress to ask permission to borrow money to cover spending Congress authorized makes zero sense if you ask me.
Yes, they are.
Their debt ceiling gets a predetermined increase every year of 3% of GDP.
Our Congress meets every year and decides on a varying amount, which is similarly a % of our GDP.
Fern
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.