• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush's First Order Of Duty: Increase Debt

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Text

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration announced Wednesday that it will run out of maneuvering room to manage the government's massive borrowing needs in two weeks, putting more pressure on Congress to raise the debt ceiling when it convenes for a special post-election session.

Treasury Department (news - web sites) officials announced that they will be able to conduct a scheduled series of debt auctions next week to raise $51 billion. However, an auction of four-week Treasury bills due to be completed on Nov. 18 will have to be postponed unless Congress acts before then to raise the debt ceiling.

"Due to debt limit constraints, we currently do not have the capacity to settle our four-week bill auction scheduled to settle on Nov. 18," Timothy Bitsberger, acting assistant Treasury secretary for financial markets, said in a statement.

Congress is scheduled to return for a lame-duck session beginning on Nov. 16 to deal with the debt ceiling, an omnibus spending plan for the rest of this budget year and other matters.

The Republican-controlled Congress put off dealing with the debt ceiling before adjourning in October, preferring not to force members to vote on the politically sensitive issue of adding to the national debt before the November elections.

The government hit the current debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion on Oct. 14, forcing Treasury to begin a series of bookkeeping maneuvers to keep financing the government's normal operations without breaching the debt ceiling. But Treasury Secretary John Snow has warned that those special measures would last only until mid-November.

The Treasury Department's actions have included reducing the amount of debt in government trust funds to free up room for further borrowing from the public. The nonpublic debt is then replaced in the trust funds once the debt ceiling is increased along with any lost interest payments.

Republicans have proposed that the debt ceiling be raised by $690 billion to $8.074 trillion, an amount that would get the government through next September, when the 2005 budget year ends.

The need to raise the debt ceiling reflects the record budget deficits of the past two years. The deficit for the 2004 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was an all-time high of $413 billion, surpassing the old mark, in dollar terms, of $377 billion in 2003.

Democrats blame the surging deficits on Bush's tax cuts, while the administration contends the tax cuts provided critical economic stimulus to help lift the economy out of the 2001 recession.

The administration says the president has a plan to cut the deficit in half by 2009, but critics contend that the real problems will come in later years as retiring baby boomers put unprecedented strains on Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare.

In its announcement Wednesday, Treasury said it will sell $51 billion in new securities next week including $22 billion in three-year notes on Monday, $15 billion in five-year notes on Tuesday and $14 billion in 10-year bonds on Wednesday.
 
The truth is indeed refreshing. =)

Next on the list on things Bush has been meaning to do......is to take the gloves off the troops in Iraq. The administration certainly didn't want to risk body bags in Iraq right before the election.
 
Debt ceilings are often raised to correspond with projected economic growth. This is about as frightening as the US trade deficiet.
 
Originally posted by: assemblage
Debt ceilings are often raised to correspond with projected economic growth. This is about as frightening as the US trade deficiet.
Didn't read the article, did you? :roll:
 
I will agree the defecit is ugly and is something that I hope that Bush addresses more seriously, and hopefully we can cut back in social programs. Our nation now is actually in a big growth period so that gives us the chance to prepare for the future now that we are past 9/11 and the recession.
My 2 cents
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: assemblage
Debt ceilings are often raised to correspond with projected economic growth. This is about as frightening as the US trade deficiet.
Didn't read the article, did you? :roll:
Yea, sorry I meant "deficeit spending" not "debt ceilings."

 
Originally posted by: assemblage
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: assemblage
Debt ceilings are often raised to correspond with projected economic growth. This is about as frightening as the US trade deficiet.
Didn't read the article, did you? :roll:
Yea, sorry I meant "deficeit spending" not "debt ceilings."

And what isn't frightening about our pace of deficit spending?

 
Originally posted by: assemblage
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: assemblage
Debt ceilings are often raised to correspond with projected economic growth. This is about as frightening as the US trade deficiet.
Didn't read the article, did you? :roll:
Yea, sorry I meant "deficeit spending" not "debt ceilings."

That's funny, Clinton grew the economy and shrunk the deficits.
 
Actually his new term hasn't started yet. You can't judge him on his next four years until next year. This is still his first term. 😉
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: assemblage
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: assemblage
Debt ceilings are often raised to correspond with projected economic growth. This is about as frightening as the US trade deficiet.
Didn't read the article, did you? :roll:
Yea, sorry I meant "deficeit spending" not "debt ceilings."

That's funny, Clinton grew the economy and shrunk the deficits.

Clinton grew some things, but he did not grow the economy. The economy is not grown by the president. For the MILLLIONTH TIME, now. Let's say it together so even the most unintelligent of us understand this, The president has very little direct control over the economy.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: assemblage
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: assemblage
Debt ceilings are often raised to correspond with projected economic growth. This is about as frightening as the US trade deficiet.
Didn't read the article, did you? :roll:
Yea, sorry I meant "deficeit spending" not "debt ceilings."

That's funny, Clinton grew the economy and shrunk the deficits.
Clinton didn't do anything. He was in the right place at the right time.

The only smart economic decision I'll hand to Clinton's terms in office was raising the interstate speed limit to 65. Except that wasn't even actually Clinton's doing. Once more, he was just along for the ride.
 
I love how the President is always credited, whether positive or negative, with every single thing that happens while they are President. I could have been President and grown the economy man. Do you really think that had Clinton been sitting in Arkansas we would have avoided the tech explosion? I'm fairly convinced that the tech explosion probably would have happened even if one of my fish were President.
 
When a President's foreign policy and fiscally disasterous domestic policy threatens the stability of the dollar and forces other countries to go off the dollar standard, then it IS his fault.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
When a President's foreign policy and fiscally disasterous domestic policy threatens the stability of the dollar and forces other countries to go off the dollar standard, then it IS his fault.
Sure is. Let us know when that actually happens.

Oh, and read this too:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa...cfm?abstract_id=533262

Abstract:
For the past four or five decades, the international monetary system has operated on a 'dollar standard'. Popular discussion suggests that this gives the US an advantage in the use of monetary policy. This Paper analyses the determination of monetary policy in a world with a dollar standard, defined here as an environment in which all traded goods prices are set in US dollars. This generates an asymmetry whereby exchange rate pass-through into the US CPI is zero, while pass-through to other countries will be positive. We show that monetary policy in such a setting does seem to accord with popular discussion. In particular, the US is essentially indifferent to exchange rate volatility in setting monetary policy, while the rest of the world places a high weight on exchange rate volatility. More importantly, in a Nash equilibrium of the monetary policy game between the US and the rest of the world, the preferences of the US dominate. That is, the equilibrium is identical to one where the US alone chooses world monetary policy. Despite this, we find surprisingly that the US loses from the dollar's role as an international currency. Even though US preferences dominate world monetary policy, the absence of exchange rate pass-through means that US consumers are worse off than those in the rest of the world, where exchange rate pass-through operates efficiently. Finally, we derive the conditions for a dollar standard to exist.

 
If Bush doesn't get Deficit spending under control soon, we'll all know just how much influence he Government has on the Economy.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Don't worry. We'll just go bankrupt and hose those suckers buying the bonds 🙂

You don't know how close you are to the TRUTH!! If the dems had any balls at all...they would walk into session with "PAYGO" stamped in BIG RED letters across their foreheads as they walk into session with the notion of blocking any attempt at raising the debt ceiling! That would be a photo worth of Time's Greatest Moments in History"!!
 
Originally posted by: Mongals
I will agree the defecit is ugly and is something that I hope that Bush addresses more seriously, and hopefully we can cut back in social programs. Our nation now is actually in a big growth period so that gives us the chance to prepare for the future now that we are past 9/11 and the recession.
My 2 cents

And which "social programs" do you think Bush could cut to put even the smallest of dents into his massive deficit? Here's a site I just found with some interesting information (I just found the site with a Google search so I can't say if the data is 100% accurate).

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
 
Originally posted by: Budarow
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Don't worry. We'll just go bankrupt and hose those suckers buying the bonds 🙂

You don't know how close you are to the TRUTH!! If the dems had any balls at all...they would walk into session with "PAYGO" stamped in BIG RED letters across their foreheads as they walk into session with the notion of blocking any attempt at raising the debt ceiling! That would be a photo worth of Time's Greatest Moments in History"!!

Oooooh I get it now. Every time I read Budarow's posts, I thought by 'dem' or 'dems' he meant them, but typed it as if he had a cutsie accent.



I am not well versed in economics: Does the government borrow from other governments or from its population, through bonds?
 
Originally posted by: stratman
Originally posted by: Budarow
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Don't worry. We'll just go bankrupt and hose those suckers buying the bonds 🙂

You don't know how close you are to the TRUTH!! If the dems had any balls at all...they would walk into session with "PAYGO" stamped in BIG RED letters across their foreheads as they walk into session with the notion of blocking any attempt at raising the debt ceiling! That would be a photo worth of Time's Greatest Moments in History"!!

Oooooh I get it now. Every time I read Budarow's posts, I thought by 'dem' or 'dems' he meant them, but typed it as if he had a cutsie accent.



I am not well versed in economics: Does the government borrow from other governments or from its population, through bonds?

Everyone buys bonds and mostly other countries to include Japan, China and U.K. It really sucks because we have to "play nice" with these other countries or they'll screw us and stop buying our debt (i.e., our interest rates would go sky high).
 
You know, for how much people bitch about how a democrat president would send out national security overseas, people sure seem oblivious to the fact that the national debt is 25% controlled by foreign entities.

The more we go into deficit spending, the more that foreign entities own us. Of course, the average american doesn't seem to mind being slaves to credit card debt so I guess there's no reason for them to care any more about the country being owned by foreigners.

Then, we get hit twice because then these same people bitch about taxes being too high, but then as debt goes up, so does the amount we pay on interest on top of the principle. What a nasty cycle.
 
Thanks Budarow.

The things that worries me most is two of the three names you mentioned, China and Japan, are (or will be soon) America's biggest rivals. Being forced to play nice with rivals = bad. Although I really know nothing about the issue.

Do many countries owe America money?
 
Back
Top