Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit

[Hacp]

Nobody has printed anything. Printing is when you add money to circulation. What we have done is add money to circulation but created more debt-- that means the money will have to come out again at some time.

Please continue reading economics blogs and books, you'll come to see it just can't work like you think it will.
What we ARE in danger of is deflation, as consumers hold too much debt, the government does, the economy stagnates, and everyone gets scared and starts paying down their bills.

You mean the Fed creating money out of thin air by writing a number on some books is not printing money?

 

[ProfJohn]

2009 is Bush's budget, I'm not sure why people keep citing the 2009 budget as if it's Obama's. Bush wrote it and was literally responsible for 90%+ of it.

Nope!!! The Democrats refused to pass Bush's last budget and instead passed only continuing legislation to keep the government running until after Obama took office and then they passed a 100% Democratic budget.

So about 25% of the 2009 budget was passed under Bush and the rest under Obama.

More important that the overall budget though is discretionary spending and under Obama it has gone through the roof.

The 2010 budget includes a 10% increase in discretionary spending over last year, which was also bloated thanks to the stimulus bill.

 

[Patranus]

Nope!!! The Democrats refused to pass Bush's last budget and instead passed only continuing legislation to keep the government running until after Obama took office and then they passed a 100% Democratic budget.

So about 25% of the 2009 budget was passed under Bush and the rest under Obama.

More important that the overall budget though is discretionary spending and under Obama it has gone through the roof.

The 2010 budget includes a 10% increase in discretionary spending over last year, which was also bloated thanks to the stimulus bill.

You mean the 480 billion dollar Omnibus spending bill? The one that increased spending?

 

[First]

Nope!!! The Democrats refused to pass Bush's last budget and instead passed only continuing legislation to keep the government running until after Obama took office and then they passed a 100% Democratic budget.

So about 25% of the 2009 budget was passed under Bush and the rest under Obama.

More important that the overall budget though is discretionary spending and under Obama it has gone through the roof.

The 2010 budget includes a 10% increase in discretionary spending over last year, which was also bloated thanks to the stimulus bill.

Bush wrote 90%+ of the 2009 budget, it's fact. The fact that the Dems didn't pass it doesn't really mean anything other than they wanted to add more stuff to it. 2009 is Bush's budget and it's not even close.

 

[Patranus]

Bush wrote 90%+ of the 2009 budget, it's fact. The fact that the Dems didn't pass it doesn't really mean anything other than they wanted to add more stuff to it. 2009 is Bush's budget and it's not even close.

And why didn't the dems pass it under BOOOSH?

(Hint: He said he would veto it - now why would he veto something he wrote 90% of?)

 

[paperfist]

So...what do we cut first?

Every elected official's head off and then we can start over again.

 

[werepossum]

You mean the Fed creating money out of thin air by writing a number on some books is not printing money?

It's hard to argue with someone who thinks adding money to circulation isn't inflationary as long as it's borrowed.

 

[drebo]

It's hard to argue with someone who thinks adding money to circulation isn't inflationary as long as it's borrowed.

My question is this: who did they borrow it from?

The answer is this: they borrowed it from themselves (i.e. they printed it).

They may have originally intended to later remove it from circulation, but we all know that will never actually happen.

 

[First]

And why didn't the dems pass it under BOOOSH?

(Hint: He said he would veto it - now why would he veto something he wrote 90% of?)

You answered your own question without knowing it.

And stop wimping out of debates.

 

[Craig234]

Over Bush's 8 years he added 5 trillion to the debt.

In just one year Obama added $1.6 trillion to the debt. At the rate he is going he will pass Bush's entire 8 year term by the end of his third year in office...

And the willfully ignorant PJ says not a workd about a massive bubble and Wall Street-led global threat to the economic system needing massive government intervention to address.

No, Obama has spent trillions on "yes we can" stickers now covering 61.4% of the nation's open space, leading to massive plant killing, lowering CO2 elimination that will cause climate change needing trillions more.

 

[nick1985]

will cause climate change

Wait...you still belive in that stuff?

lol @ u

 

[heyheybooboo]

What a horrible, typical Fail thread.

And it's the same knee-jerking dumb lying-ass partisan trolls (with the return of their leader, the Perfessor) expressing their indignation.

Fact: When you cut taxes, tax revenues do not increase. Voodoo Economics has failed for 30 years.

Get back to me when you figure out a way to pay for:

1) The 2001 tax cuts;
2) The 2003 tax cuts (I'm sure everyone recalls the members of the Bush Administration, including Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who resigned in protest);
3) No Child Left Behind;
4) The Part D Big Pharma Give-A-Way;
5) A 70% increase in baseline DoD spending;
6) The War in Afghanistan; and
7) The Bush Folly in Iraq


FY 2010 is the first fiscal year in which the full effect of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are being felt. It is no accident that in FY2010 individual tax receipts as a percentage of GDP will be at their lowest level since 1950 --- and corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP will be at their lowest level since 1940.

By the way, the (less than) Honorable George W. Bush in his FY 2009 Budget projected total revenues of $2.931 trillion for FY 2010.

Bush only missed it by $600 billion, or roughly half of the projected deficit for FY2010.




--

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If we don't do this what happens? Does the house of cards come crashing down?

 

[rudder]

Well right, except the Bush admin wrote it in 2008 and it was well over $1T by then. You have to have your budget in before the next fiscal year, so it's literally impossible for any admin to be anything but marginally responsible for their first budget; they all inherit. Of course, 2010 onward is all Obama and I'll be interested to see what the tax receipts and spending look like, that's for sure.

What rock have you been hiding under?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-20-federal-deficit_N.htm

 

[Budmantom]

2009 is Bush's budget, I'm not sure why people keep citing the 2009 budget as if it's Obama's. Bush wrote it and was literally responsible for 90%+ of it.

Who approved it, who passed it?

 

[drebo]

People who think Bush is a fiscal conservative are morons. No one is claiming he's any better than Obama as far as spending goes.

The overwhelming consensus amoung Old Republicans and True Conservatives is that they're both wrong and neither was good for the country. We need a fiscal conservative in the white house, and have for about the last 17 years.

 

[Budmantom]

People who think Bush is a fiscal conservative are morons. No one is claiming he's any better than Obama as far as spending goes.

The overwhelming consensus amoung Old Republicans and True Conservatives is that they're both wrong and neither was good for the country. We need a fiscal conservative in the white house, and have for about the last 17 years.

Both are bad one is substantially worse.

It's kind of like saying that 7% and 10% unemployment are bad on the face of it it's true however one is a lot worse.

 

[soccerballtux]

You mean the Fed creating money out of thin air by writing a number on some books is not printing money?

they haven't done that.

 

[soccerballtux]

My question is this: who did they borrow it from?

The answer is this: they borrowed it from themselves (i.e. they printed it).

They may have originally intended to later remove it from circulation, but we all know that will never actually happen.

Do you know the definition of printing? Because they haven't done it.

Why doesn't someone post back with the specific instance of printing that the Fed has done, and when they did it.

Bunch of crazy rednecks that don't know how economics work. They have not printed. Answer me this: how much of the debt we've accrued in the last year has been funded with Tbonds? Vs. how much with Tbills? You have your printing answer right there. The CLOSEST thing you could call "printing", and I'd probably give it to you, has been the MBS purchase program. Nothing else. But considering how much more debt we have than money in circulation (always happens when you create money from debt), I don't see this as a problem.

Please don't be willfully (woefully) ignorant.

 

[TheDoc9]

Do you know the definition of printing? Because they haven't done it.

Why doesn't someone post back with the specific instance of printing that the Fed has done, and when they did it.

Bunch of crazy rednecks that don't know how economics work. They have not printed. Answer me this: how much of the debt we've accrued in the last year has been funded with Tbonds? Vs. how much with Tbills? You have your printing answer right there. The CLOSEST thing you could call "printing", and I'd probably give it to you, has been the MBS purchase program. Nothing else. But considering how much more debt we have than money in circulation (always happens when you create money from debt), I don't see this as a problem.

Please don't be willfully (woefully) ignorant.

Good points, but I think he's referring to the increase in money supply which was doubled over night. Deflation in this case would really just be a correction as people want to get out of debt and costs stabalize. Except the decision makers (democrats, republicans, the fed) don't want a deflationary correction at any cost. Increasing the level of debt will help insure this, and it will insure that the middle class is working for the rest of their lives with no retirement.

 

[soccerballtux]

Good points, but I think he's referring to the increase in money supply, which was doubled over night. Deflation in this case would really just be a correction as people want to get out of debt and costs stabalize. Except the decision makers (democrats, republicans, the fed) don't want at deflationary correction at any cost. Increasing the level of debt will help insure this, and it will insure that the middle class is working for the rest of their lives with no retirement.

Well, increase in the money supply doesn't mean much if it doesn't enter the economy-- which it hasn't, because nobody trusts anybody anymore after the suspension of mark-to-market accounting. There are few credit-worthy borrowers worth investing in; add to that a general fear over the future of the economy, banks that see a lot more storm ahead, and business lending plummets-- so no inflation.

If the treasury had been funding all this new debt we're accruing with Tbonds, then that could be considered "printing" because it's adding cash into the economy for at least 10 years.

 

[rudder]

People who think Bush is a fiscal conservative are morons. No one is claiming he's any better than Obama as far as spending goes.

The overwhelming consensus amoung Old Republicans and True Conservatives is that they're both wrong and neither was good for the country. We need a fiscal conservative in the white house, and have for about the last 17 years.

Unfortunately, the consensus is that because Bush completely raided the treasury in the last 6 months of his presidency... that it is no problem for obama and congress to do the same. I suppose you can give kudos to obama for doing it quicker than Bush.

 

[Fizzorin]

Note to all politicians:

Spending money you don't have is not the only way to do things.

 

[Genx87]

Is there a set % they can increase this ceiling? Why not just raise it to 20 trillion and in a few year do it again? Has congress ever not raised the ceiling?

 

[Throckmorton]

A lot of you apparently failed economics class or didn't take it.

First of all, the the previous president increased spending for 8 years. Obama had to continue that spending, and then some, for the wars and the stimulus.

You know what the government is supposed to do during a recession? Spend money to replace consumer spending. If you're parroting that Ron Paul BS "we can't spend money yak yak yak we're in a recession yak yak yak", it's because you fundamentally misunderstand basic economics. CUTTING spending, a la Hoover, would make the recession WORSE which would REDUCE revenue, which would INCREASE THE DEBT IN THE LONG TERM.


Let me say this again. Cutting spending would make the recession worse. A worse recession means less revenue. Less revenue means higher national debt.