$9 trillion in debt

[BoberFett]

Are you Democrat faithful embarassed yet?

Craig? Senseamp? The rest of you bleating sheep? What do you have to say for your messiahs now?

We know Republicans are crooked. They don't even attempt to hide it anymore. But you Democrats have been had and you can't even see it. Only one Democrat senator voted no to expanding our debt ceiling by another $1 trillion. (Your heroes Hilary and Obama couldn't even be bothered to vote on the issue. Flip flop. Flip flop. Ooooo, campaign money!) Most of the House voted Yes as well.

Now I'll just kick back and watch the sheep herd in and tell me how awful Republicans are. Spin. Dodge. Deflect. Baaaaa.

PS I'm quite proud of my representative (Keith Ellison) who voted No. Mr. Ellison, a Muslim, is more of an American than 95% of our "leaders".

 

[imported_Tango]

You can't solve this voting on the debt ceiling. You need long-term economic policies.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Tango
You can't solve this voting on the debt ceiling. You need long-term economic policies.

Sorry, but how does extending a gambling addicts credit limit stop them from gambling? At this point the only answer is to turn off the faucet. No more money. Let it crumble, and we'll save the programs that need saving.

A higher debt limit just postpones the problem. And do honestly think they won't extend it again next year. And the year after. And the year after that.

You have your head in the sand.

 

[rchiu]

What you failed to mention is that the money raised from the expanded debt ceiling goes to the soldiers in Iraq. While I don't agree with this war, it's a fact that soldiers are there and they need armor, tanks, and their family needs money. You just cannot cut the fund for the soldiers while they put their life on the line for the country.

The government need to pull the troop out of Iraq, cutting the fund for the troop is not the right way to stop this war.

 

[Engineer]

Neither side is willing to give up spending and the only time that either side even says anything about it is if the bill in question was originated or supported by the "other" side. It would be interesting, even if nearly impossible, if enough voted NO on the measure just one time to block it and see the effect on how quickly they could cut the fat from the budget to get it in balance. Never happen though.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: rchiu
What you failed to mention is that the money raised from the expanded debt ceiling goes to the soldiers in Iraq. While I don't agree with this war, it's a fact that soldiers are there and they need armor, tanks, and their family needs money. You just cannot cut the fund for the soldiers while they put their life on the line for the country.

The government need to pull the troop out of Iraq, cutting the fund for the troop is not the right way to stop this war.

While part of it goes to Iraq, the government would still be running a deficit without Iraq and would need to raise the limit eventually. It might have been a little later but Iraq doesn't change that fact. Both sides have shown NO will power to back up their lip service to a balanced budget.

 

[Moonbeam]

Looks like about an 11% increase in the debt.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tango
You can't solve this voting on the debt ceiling. You need long-term economic policies.

Sorry, but how does extending a gambling addicts credit limit stop them from gambling? At this point the only answer is to turn off the faucet. No more money. Let it crumble, and we'll save the programs that need saving.

A higher debt limit just postpones the problem. And do honestly think they won't extend it again next year. And the year after. And the year after that.

You have your head in the sand.

No. I do believe the deficit/debt is one major problem the US has now, and could eventually become the major problem of the country.

I just said you need economic policies to revert this. You cannot change a major macroeconomic trend in a week, it takes years.

Higher debt doesn't come from government spending alone, but from current account deficit also. You can fix a lower ceiling, but this will not determine a current account surplus. You need to generate that surplus with specific policies increasing exports and decreasing imports.

Debt increasing or decreasing is not a policy you can change with a vote. It's the result of policies determining surpluses or deficits.

You see the difference. You can't just say "Debt, debt, go away!" and hope it'll work. You need to do something about the causes of that debt, and reverse the trend.

I agree that they will extend next year also. And that's because the policies needed to reverse this trend would be extremely unpopular.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rchiu
What you failed to mention is that the money raised from the expanded debt ceiling goes to the soldiers in Iraq. While I don't agree with this war, it's a fact that soldiers are there and they need armor, tanks, and their family needs money. You just cannot cut the fund for the soldiers while they put their life on the line for the country.

The government need to pull the troop out of Iraq, cutting the fund for the troop is not the right way to stop this war.

While part of it goes to Iraq, the government would still be running a deficit without Iraq and would need to raise the limit eventually. It might have been a little later but Iraq doesn't change that fact. Both sides have shown NO will power to back up their lip service to a balanced budget.

well, my point is that this is a vote to fund the war in iraq, not a vote to balance budget/reduce deficit. So it's not fair to criticize democrat or republican voting on this from government deficit point of view. I agree that we need someone in the white house next year who takes government budget seriously and work to get budge surplus and reduce national debt gradually.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tango
You can't solve this voting on the debt ceiling. You need long-term economic policies.

Sorry, but how does extending a gambling addicts credit limit stop them from gambling? At this point the only answer is to turn off the faucet. No more money. Let it crumble, and we'll save the programs that need saving.

A higher debt limit just postpones the problem. And do honestly think they won't extend it again next year. And the year after. And the year after that.

You have your head in the sand.

Uhmmm, you seriously want the federal government to collapse in order to pare back government spending? Please let me know when this is going to happen so I can leave the country before that catastrophe sets in. (This is important because there's a decent chance air traffic would cease functioning and then I'd be trapped). Simply put, responsible fiscal policies are what is needed, not forcing the government to print loads of extra money to pay off its debt leading to hyperinflation. No thanks.

Of course they raised the debt celing. They did so because they are responsible officials. To not do so would be utterly insane. I'm not sure what you want the democrats to do. They have a 1 vote majority in a chamber that requires a 10 vote majority to do anything of substance. Some people would say they have a 0 vote majority because Lieberman is pretty much a Republican.

There are plenty of things to beat up the Democrats about since they got control of Congress. They are generally spineless, and they have passed some god awful legislation so far. (FISA changes anyone?) To complain that they have failed to turn the federal government around without any kind of functioning legislative majority is simply foolish though. They don't have the means to do it, particularly with a hyper partisan and hostile White House, so stop expecting it. If you really want to give them a chance to change things, vote some more Republicans out and give them their shot with a Democratic President in 2008. The Republicans certainly don't deserve another chance for awhile.

 

[Lemon law]

I agree, this is not per say a Republican or democratic problem, this is systemic problem of delivering government service by putting it on the national credit card.
Even at 3% interest, the cost of servicing that now 9000 billion debt is 270 billion a year, or roughly our current deficit this year. If interest rates rise or the debt
is called in by foreign governments, then a ticking time bomb ignites.

At the same time our balance of trade deficit which went south around 1980 continues to grow beyond all rational limits.

One day the merry go round ride will stop and we will have to confront the ugly truth. Meanwhile its lets party.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rchiu
What you failed to mention is that the money raised from the expanded debt ceiling goes to the soldiers in Iraq. While I don't agree with this war, it's a fact that soldiers are there and they need armor, tanks, and their family needs money. You just cannot cut the fund for the soldiers while they put their life on the line for the country.

The government need to pull the troop out of Iraq, cutting the fund for the troop is not the right way to stop this war.

While part of it goes to Iraq, the government would still be running a deficit without Iraq and would need to raise the limit eventually. It might have been a little later but Iraq doesn't change that fact. Both sides have shown NO will power to back up their lip service to a balanced budget.

Oh and how is that true? The budget was balanced under Clinton. Republican Congress and a Democratic President. You just didn't have a White House back then pushing incredibly irresponsible budgetary policies.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmmm, you seriously want the federal government to collapse in order to pare back government spending? Please let me know when this is going to happen so I can leave the country before that catastrophe sets in. (This is important because there's a decent chance air traffic would cease functioning and then I'd be trapped). Simply put, responsible fiscal policies are what is needed, not forcing the government to print loads of extra money to pay off its debt leading to hyperinflation. No thanks.

Of course they raised the debt celing. They did so because they are responsible officials. To not do so would be utterly insane. I'm not sure what you want the democrats to do. They have a 1 vote majority in a chamber that requires a 10 vote majority to do anything of substance. Some people would say they have a 0 vote majority because Lieberman is pretty much a Republican.

There are plenty of things to beat up the Democrats about since they got control of Congress. They are generally spineless, and they have passed some god awful legislation so far. (FISA changes anyone?) To complain that they have failed to turn the federal government around without any kind of functioning legislative majority is simply foolish though. They don't have the means to do it, particularly with a hyper partisan and hostile White House, so stop expecting it. If you really want to give them a chance to change things, vote some more Republicans out and give them their shot with a Democratic President in 2008. The Republicans certainly don't deserve another chance for awhile.

Little Bo Beep has lost her eskimospy...

I'm sick of hearing this "they don't have a veto proof majority" excuse. That's pathetic and you know it. Apparently your hyper-partisan self can't see it. Maybe you missed the fact that THEY ALMOST ALL VOTED YES. The didn't even vote No and wait for the veto from the chimp. They just said Yes to screwing over America. Those that could be bothered to vote that is. The Democrat frontrunners were too busy deal with little things like protecting the US from financial freefall.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

PS I'm quite proud of my representative (Keith Ellison) who voted No. Mr. Ellison, a Muslim, is more of an American than 95% of our "leaders".

I voted against Ellison, but since he voted no to this, I'm quite happy with him on this particular issue. Our debt is going to be the downfall of this country, and it's going to come sooner than we all think.

Since you are from Minnesota, Bober, I'm sure you are aware when our state has deficits they shut down government buildings to save cash. Imagine that on a federal level (which will probably force states to act, which will probably dry up any reserves the states have) and having our government shutdown. I don't even want to imagine whats going to happen then.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If interest rates rise or the debt is called in by foreign governments, then a ticking time bomb ignites.

Sovereign debt emissions are not callable.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If interest rates rise or the debt is called in by foreign governments, then a ticking time bomb ignites.

Sovereign debt emissions are not callable.

Are you saying that our government has a credit card without limits? Trying to understand what you are saying here.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Are you Democrat faithful embarassed yet?

Craig? Senseamp? The rest of you bleating sheep? What do you have to say for your messiahs now?

We know Republicans are crooked. They don't even attempt to hide it anymore. But you Democrats have been had and you can't even see it. Only one Democrat senator voted no to expanding our debt ceiling by another $1 trillion. (Your heroes Hilary and Obama couldn't even be bothered to vote on the issue. Flip flop. Flip flop. Ooooo, campaign money!) Most of the House voted Yes as well.

Now I'll just kick back and watch the sheep herd in and tell me how awful Republicans are. Spin. Dodge. Deflect. Baaaaa.

PS I'm quite proud of my representative (Keith Ellison) who voted No. Mr. Ellison, a Muslim, is more of an American than 95% of our "leaders".

----

Bush got 6 trillion... So what is another 1 trillion? Hell, I bet bush could spend that 1 trillion before he leaves.

So what is the big deal? Might as well go out with a bang eh?

I don't see you giving any solutions to this problem. If there were any. I think we are at the bloat level and its too late now. We are spending 1.3 billion a day just to keep it afloat. We can't possible afford to pay it off.... I really don't have any answers nor do I really care. I guess I am waiting for America to go bankrupt the dollar is falling...

Thanks, Bush!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

PS I'm quite proud of my representative (Keith Ellison) who voted No. Mr. Ellison, a Muslim, is more of an American than 95% of our "leaders".

I voted against Ellison, but since he voted no to this, I'm quite happy with him on this particular issue. Our debt is going to be the downfall of this country, and it's going to come sooner than we all think.

Since you are from Minnesota, Bober, I'm sure you are aware when our state has deficits they shut down government buildings to save cash. Imagine that on a federal level (which will probably force states to act, which will probably dry up any reserves the states have) and having our government shutdown. I don't even want to imagine whats going to happen then.

Yep, I do remember when the state shutdown. I also remember not even noticing it had happened.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Are you Democrat faithful embarassed yet?

Craig? Senseamp? The rest of you bleating sheep? What do you have to say for your messiahs now?

We know Republicans are crooked. They don't even attempt to hide it anymore. But you Democrats have been had and you can't even see it. Only one Democrat senator voted no to expanding our debt ceiling by another $1 trillion. (Your heroes Hilary and Obama couldn't even be bothered to vote on the issue. Flip flop. Flip flop. Ooooo, campaign money!) Most of the House voted Yes as well.

Now I'll just kick back and watch the sheep herd in and tell me how awful Republicans are. Spin. Dodge. Deflect. Baaaaa.

PS I'm quite proud of my representative (Keith Ellison) who voted No. Mr. Ellison, a Muslim, is more of an American than 95% of our "leaders".

----

Bush got 6 trillion... So what is another 1 trillion? Hell, I bet bush could spend that 1 trillion before he leaves.

So what is the big deal? Might as well go out with a bang eh?

I don't see you giving any solutions to this problem. If there were any. I think we are at the bloat level and its too late now. We are spending 1.3 billion a day just to keep it afloat. We can't possible afford to pay it off.... I really don't have any answers nor do I really care. I guess I am waiting for America to go bankrupt the dollar is falling...

Thanks, Bush!

Haha, here's one of the sheep now. How could I have forgotten to put ericlp in my list? You can always depend on him to try to deflect off the Democrats onto Bush. Sorry fool, your party voted for this one all the way. Don't pin it on Bush.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tango
You can't solve this voting on the debt ceiling. You need long-term economic policies.

Sorry, but how does extending a gambling addicts credit limit stop them from gambling? At this point the only answer is to turn off the faucet. No more money. Let it crumble, and we'll save the programs that need saving.

A higher debt limit just postpones the problem. And do honestly think they won't extend it again next year. And the year after. And the year after that.

You have your head in the sand.

Oh? You want to turn off the faucet? Where do you think the war money is coming from?

So your prepared to bring home all the troops and call Iraq a loss? I would be willing to do that.... But just by turning off the faucet doesn't mean we gonna stop any further incurred charges... We are still gonna have to float the interest somehow. Where is the plan for that?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If interest rates rise or the debt is called in by foreign governments, then a ticking time bomb ignites.

Sovereign debt emissions are not callable.

Are you saying that our government has a credit card without limits? Trying to understand what you are saying here.

The debt cannot be called as some people fear. About the worst national foreign banks can do is stop or slow buying it.

Even if it was possible to call the bulk of the debt the potential consequences to the world economy from doing so would be disastrous. Failure to make interest payments on Federal securities (a first in the history of the US) would probably assassinate the world economy.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: rchiu
What you failed to mention is that the money raised from the expanded debt ceiling goes to the soldiers in Iraq. While I don't agree with this war, it's a fact that soldiers are there and they need armor, tanks, and their family needs money. You just cannot cut the fund for the soldiers while they put their life on the line for the country.

The government need to pull the troop out of Iraq, cutting the fund for the troop is not the right way to stop this war.

While part of it goes to Iraq, the government would still be running a deficit without Iraq and would need to raise the limit eventually. It might have been a little later but Iraq doesn't change that fact. Both sides have shown NO will power to back up their lip service to a balanced budget.

Oh and how is that true? The budget was balanced under Clinton. Republican Congress and a Democratic President. You just didn't have a White House back then pushing incredibly irresponsible budgetary policies.

We've been running a deficit since 1969 and those last two years of Clinton/GOP Congress were the first in balance (if eve that) in 30 years. It only lasted for a few years so now we're 2 out of 38. I say that that shows NO will power.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Oh? You want to turn off the faucet? Where do you think the war money is coming from?

So your prepared to bring home all the troops and call Iraq a loss? I would be willing to do that.... But just by turning off the faucet doesn't mean we gonna stop any further incurred charges... We are still gonna have to float the interest somehow. Where is the plan for that?

Why would I care if war funds dried up, fool?

 

[Engineer]

I am curious though as why the OP is purposely directing this toward the Democrats when they are known as the "Tax and Spend" party?

Fiscally Conservative they are not...nor are the Conservatives we now have in Congress.

Funny, after years of never not signing a spending bill, I heard Bush now refered to as Budget Warrier Bush by Larry Kudlow (CNBC) a few days ago, LOL! :laugh:

OT: Is it against Islam to pay interest? (I thought I had read that and was wondering if the OP's rep. had used this or not in his decision to vote no).

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I am curious though as why the OP is purposely directing this toward the Democrats when they are known as the "Tax and Spend" party?

Fiscally Conservative they are not...nor are the Conservatives we now have in Congress.

Funny, after years of never not signing a spending bill, I heard Bush now refered to as Budget Warrier Bush by Larry Kudlow (CNBC) a few days ago, LOL! :laugh:

OT: Is it against Islam to pay interest? (I thought I had read that and was wondering if the OP's rep. had used this or not in his decision to vote no).

Too funny! :laugh: