• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Democrats to lift US debt ceiling by $1.8 TRILLION

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
You are reading the headline correctly. Soon, very soon now, the Democrat U.S. Congress will increase the legal limit of American national debt by $1.8 trillion dollars, double what was considered the high end six short months ago. And they plan to use every bit of it for favored programs and constituencies.

The Democrat strategists are relying on you to not remember who did what by the time the 2010 elections roll along. Like all of the initiatives they have passed without due consideration, this one needs to be done right now.

While it remains to be seen who actually buys that debt in the forthcoming Treasury auctions, it is not unreasonable to foresee a future credit downgrading of Treasury instruments and the devaluation of the US dollar.

The current crop of Democrat profligates seems addicted as any heroin addict that has not had a fix to spend, spend, spend. Like an addict that has not yet overdosed, they have not hit bottom but they can certainly see it from here.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30417.html

Dems to lift debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, fear 2010 backlash
By: David Rogers
POLITICO
December 9, 2009 07:24 PM EST

In a bold but risky year-end strategy, Democrats are preparing to raise the federal debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion before New Year’s rather than have to face the issue again prior to the 2010 elections.

“We’ve incurred this debt. We have to pay our bills,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told POLITICO Wednesday. And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.

The leadership is betting that it’s better for the party to take its lumps now rather than risk further votes over the coming year. But the enormity of the number could create its own dynamic, much as another debt ceiling fight in 1985 gave rise to the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction act mandating across-the-board spending cuts nearly 25 years ago.

Already in the Senate, there is growing pressure in both parties for the creation of a novel bipartisan task force empowered to force expedited votes in the next Congress on deficit reduction steps now shunned by lawmakers.

As introduced Wednesday, the legislation sets no specific targets for deficit reduction, but its 18-member task force — 16 of whom would come from Congress — is promised immense leverage to force change if they can first come together behind a plan.

“This is a defining moment,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of the lead sponsors, and New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the panel’s ranking Republican, is already maneuvering to try to add the legislation as an amendment to any bill tapped to carry the debt increase.

As explained by Hoyer and other Democrats, that will almost certainly be a pending $636.4 billion Pentagon appropriations bill that includes $128.3 in contingency funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House leadership has held back the bill for weeks, saving it for this moment, but now appropriations clerks have been instructed to have a final package ready to go by Monday.

Leadership staff stressed that nothing was yet final in what has become a year-end negotiation between top Democrats in the House and Senate. But the Senate appears to have been the first to put the $1.8 trillion number on the table. And Hoyer’s comments are the clearest yet on the scale of the increase and the expectation that it will be part of a larger year-end legislative train pulled along by the must-pass military bill.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, who is pursuing job-related measures he would also like to add, insisted that the debt issue is a “leadership call” alone. But the Wisconsin Democrat showed no sign of opposition to the strategy outlined by Hoyer.

“It is December. We don’t really have a choice,” Obey told POLITICO. “The bill’s already been run up; the credit card has already been used. When you get the bill in the mail you need to pay it.”

Though Treasury can buy itself time by moving assets around, it is already coming close to the current debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion. Last spring, the Democratic-backed budget proposed to raise this to about $13 trillion, but given the current pace of borrowing, no one now expects that will be sufficient to get through 2010.
In fact, fiscal year 2009 ended Sept. 30 with a $1.4 trillion deficit, which demanded higher-than-expected Treasury borrowing. Most of that was due to the downturn in the economy and spending commitments in place before Barack Obama took office. And as much as Republicans point to the president’s economic recovery bill last February as the culprit, only a small share of that $787 billion package was spent by Sept. 30.

The picture in 2010 is different. The administration is predicting the stimulus will hit its stride with much more spending. And there will be a steady escalation of outlays driven by back-to-back increases in 2009 and 2010 appropriations for domestic agencies.

The White House has vowed to be more deficit conscious in its forthcoming 2011 budget due out in February. But the House could vote as early as Thursday on a $446.8 billion year-end package covering more than a dozen Cabinet departments and agencies and representing a healthy 9 percent to 10 percent increase over current spending for the same accounts.

For example, transportation and housing resources would grow by 12 percent, including $2.5 billion for high-speed-rail investments on top of the $8 billion already added by the White House to the giant stimulus bill in February. A $163.5 budget for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education would add an additional $8.6 billion to annual spending, and Veterans Health Administration spending would grow to $45.1 billion, a $4.1 billion increase.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Stop the presses, our ongoing defecit spending requires debt increases. Don't pay attention to the real causes, just post cynical comments that add nothing to suggest fixes.

How many times do we need to discuss the problems of right-wing doma to allow the domination of our system by the big monied interests and still get the nonsense posts about the inevitable debt?

If you want to stop the bankrupting of America and the middle cllass, the only way is to put the progressive dems in power, until then the concentrated power will get its way.
 

RoloMather

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2008
1,600
1
0
Psh. A trillion here. A trillion there. Why does it matter? The world is going to end in 2012 anyways.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
As usual, the OP has a very short memory (as in he can't remember anything prior to 01/2009)... Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.

It’s the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch.

The bailout plan now pending in Congress could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt – though President Bush said this morning he expects that over time, “much if not all” of the bailout money “will be paid back.”

But the government is taking no chances. Buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation is a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It’ll be the 7th time the debt limit has been raised during this administration. In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion.

Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto declined an invitation to comment on the enormous jump in the national debt during Mr. Bush’s presidency. He referred me to OMB – the Office of Management and Budget, which tried to make the case that as a percentage of the economy, the national debt is not that big.

In its budget documents in February, OMB estimated that next year’s national debt would hit $10.4 trillion – which it said would amount to 69.3 percent of the gross domestic product – the standard measure of the size of the economy.

That’s high – but far from an all-time high. After World War II, the national debt soared to over $270 billion – a quaint figure by today’s standards. Numerically, it’s less than the amount of federal deficit we now run up in a single year. But back in 1946, the Debt amounted to 121.7 percent of the size of the total economy.

By the time Richard Nixon began his second term in 1973, the national debt had grown to $466 billion – though as percentage of GDP, it had fallen to 35.7 percent.

Today, OMB press secretary Corinne Hirsch, renewed the oft-made government argument that reporters should focus on just that part of the national debt that is held by the public – now about $5.6 trillion and not include that portion billed as “intra-governmental holdings” – money the government owes itself – especially the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

Of course, the government doesn’t have that money either. It’s been spent.

President Bush made that point himself on April 5, 2005, when he paid a visit to the offices of the Bureau of the Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va.

He was shown a white file cabinet with keypad locks on each of its four drawers in which the Social Security Trust Fund is stored. On that day, there was no cash – as he noted in a speech later in the day.

“There is no 'trust fund,' just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay – will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs,” he told an audience at West Virginia University.

The government didn’t have the money it owed itself back then – and still doesn’t.

A couple of weeks after he took office, President Bush addressed the Republican Congressional Retreat in Williamsburg and declared that his budget “pays down the national debt.”

In recent years, President Bush almost never mentions the national debt.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
This better be enough for my sharks with laser beams on their foreheads, as well as a moon base death star that targets the RNC and Tea Party Movement headquarters.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
This better be enough for my sharks with laser beams on their foreheads, as well as a moon base death star that targets the RNC and Tea Party Movement headquarters.
It might not be a moon base, but tonight I learned that we had a serious effort in the late 50's to set off a nuclear explosion on the moon visible to Earth while it was over the USSR to intimidate them.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Stop the presses, our ongoing defecit spending requires debt increases. Don't pay attention to the real causes, just post cynical comments that add nothing to suggest fixes.

How many times do we need to discuss the problems of right-wing doma to allow the domination of our system by the big monied interests and still get the nonsense posts about the inevitable debt?

If you want to stop the bankrupting of America and the middle cllass, the only way is to put the progressive dems in power, until then the concentrated power will get its way.
:thumbsup:
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
Care to elaborate on my post above (#7)?
sure... i give the kids an extra whack when they use 'but someone else did it' as an excuse... that some previous screwups did stupid things is supposed to be a model used to improve the present... the current pols are using it to spur themselves on to greater lows...

but we'll inflate our way out of the debt... that'll be easy on the 'middle class'...
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Care to elaborate on my post above (#7)?
Sure. You have a fundamental lack of understanding as to how our government works. Not surprising, really. Most on the left do when screaming BUT BUSH!

Protip: Congress (the Senate specifically, I believe) has to authorize all spending. It's kinda, ya know, how our government is setup to work. Checks and balances and all that.

Guess who's controlled Congress (the ones who authorize spending) since 2006. Oops, that's right, Democrats. The president can only push and prod Congress and sign/veto a final bill that comes across his desk.

TLDR: your post above is nothing more than more ignorant BUT BUSH! whining. Especially considering Bush had the opposing party in control of Congress for the last two years of his term, so if any out-of-control deficit spending was occurring in the later years, guess what? The Dems approved it. :eek:

Note - I am not giving the Republicans a free pass for the irresponsible spending from 2001-2006. I am addressing the lame excuse that this is all "necessary" because of the "mess Bush left us", even though the Democrats had to approve of everything that caused this mess! But man, things are so bad now with the Dems running rampant that "only" a $500 billion deficit looks good! :(

Rut ro, Raggy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png

Look at 2008 and 2009...hey wait, Democrat-controlled Congress!

Of course, those on the left will point to the PROJECTIONS and claim, "Hey, it's gonna be better!" They are just PROJECTIONS, however, and 99.9% of the time, government spending projections are wrong and on the low side.

And, before the left claims, "But Iraq...!"

The Risks of Growing Entitlement Spending

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

And no, the GAO is not some "right-wing creationist blog". It is a neutral government entity, kind of like the CBO. Notice how the chart isn't titled "The Risks of Growing Military Spending".

Man, that chart is depressing...we are so screwed if we continue on this horrible current "spend and borrow" path. The Democrats have been the ones enabling the recent round of irresponsible spending since 2006, so this is their bogeyman now. The Democrats in Congress are the ones lifting the debt ceiling by 1.8 TRILLION. Obama is the one saying we need to "keep spending to get out of the recession", when we have no more money to spend!

BUT BUSH! didn't work at the beginning of the year, and it especially doesn't work now. Wow...this is bad.
 
Last edited:

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
sure... i give the kids an extra whack when they use 'but someone else did it' as an excuse... that some previous screwups did stupid things is supposed to be a model used to improve the present... the current pols are using it to spur themselves on to greater lows...

but we'll inflate our way out of the debt... that'll be easy on the 'middle class'...
I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Sure. You have a fundamental lack of understanding as to how our government works. Not surprising, really. Most on the left do when screaming BUT BUSH!

Protip: Congress (the Senate specifically, I believe) has to authorize all spending. It's kinda, ya know, how our government is setup to work. Checks and balances and all that.

Guess who's controlled Congress (the ones who authorize spending) since 2006, including that "horrible" $500 billion deficit? Oops, that's right, Democrats. The president can only push and prod Congress and sign/veto a final bill that comes across his desk.

$500 billion is the new million now with total Democrat control.

TLDR: your post above is nothing more than more ignorant BUT BUSH! whining. Especially considering Bush had the opposing party in control of Congress for the last two years of his term, so if any out-of-control deficit spending was occurring in the later years, guess what? The Dems approved it. :eek:

Note - I am not giving the Republicans a free pass for the irresponsible spending from 2001-2006. I am addressing the lame excuse that this is all "necessary" because of the "mess Bush left us", even though the Democrats had to approve of everything that caused this mess!

Rut ro, Raggy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png

Look at 2008 and 2009...hey wait, Democrat-controlled Congress!

Of course, those on the left will point to the PROJECTIONS and claim, "Hey, it's gonna be better!" They are just PROJECTIONS, however, and 99.9% of the time, government spending projections are wrong and on the low side.
Did the Dems have a veto proof majority? Didn't think so. Both the president and congress are responsible but you're blaming only the Dems. As usual. Hypocrisy.
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy.
Yes, on your part and especially from those on the left. You act like your crap don't stink, when the Dems are making a bigger mess than Bush and Co. could ever dream of.

Don't point out the splinter in someone else's eyes while ignoring the freaking 2x4 in your own eye! It makes you look extremely hypocritical.

Get over BUT BUSH!...it didn't work then and it doesn't work now. This is entirely the Dems' show. It was since 2006, and it especially is now, with pretty much rubber stamping all along the way. $500 billion is chump change at the rate the Democrats are spending us into oblivion.
 
Last edited:

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Did the Dems have a veto proof majority? Didn't think so. Both the president and congress are responsible but you're blaming only the Dems. As usual. Hypocrisy.
Do you even read crap before you spew your nonsense?

FROM MY POST WHICH YOU EVEN QUOTED -

Note - I am not giving the Republicans a free pass for the irresponsible spending from 2001-2006. I am addressing the lame excuse that this is all "necessary" because of the "mess Bush left us", even though the Democrats had to approve of everything that caused this mess! But man, things are so bad now with the Dems running rampant that "only" a $500 billion deficit looks good!
Good grief, way to selectively pick and choose what you want to see!

Protip: the Dems don't even have a veto proof majority now, since that would require a two-thirds majority! Do you even know what you're blabbing on about? My goodness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto_override

"In the United States, Congress can override a presidential veto by having a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and Senate, thus enacting the bill into law despite the president's veto."
 
Last edited:

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Stop the presses, our ongoing defecit spending requires debt increases. Don't pay attention to the real causes, just post cynical comments that add nothing to suggest fixes.

How many times do we need to discuss the problems of right-wing doma to allow the domination of our system by the big monied interests and still get the nonsense posts about the inevitable debt?

If you want to stop the bankrupting of America and the middle cllass, the only way is to put the progressive dems in power, until then the concentrated power will get its way.
LOL, thanks.
As usual, the OP has a very short memory (as in he can't remember anything prior to 01/2009)... Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt
So he almost doubled it in 8 years. Fvck him. How long is going to take Obama to double it again? At this rate it will take him half as long.

This is just another $6k for each American, who cares, right?
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
So he almost doubled it in 8 years. Fvck him. How long is going to take Obama to double it again? At this rate it will take him half as long.
Debt is different from deficit. I'm not an economist, but increasing our deficit is far worse than increasing our debt. I'm fairly sure paying off our debt is included in the annual budget, but a deficit occurs when we don't have enough money to pay off that debt.

In that regard, Obama is already cruising at record levels! Bring on the second stimulus, government health care and cap and trade! More crap we can't afford!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Debt_and_Debt_%25_to_GDP_-_2010_Budget.png

Up, up and up! Keep in mind this is only projected, and is pretty much guaranteed to actually be too low. The Dems seem awfully fixated on railing against Bush and the Rs for their "irresponsible spending" without looking in the mirror once and a while.

Pshaw...we ain't seen nothin' yet, and the Dems are out to show us what REAL out-of-control spending is!
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,522
3,628
126
The Bush Legacy lives on. Not a cheap shot, just the facts. If Bush was Fiscally responsible, the Debt ceiling would now bbe Reduced instead of Increased.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Debt is different from deficit. I'm not an economist, but increasing our deficit is far worse than increasing our debt. I'm fairly sure paying off our debt is included in the annual budget, but a deficit occurs when we don't have enough money to pay off that debt.

In that regard, Obama is already cruising at record levels! Bring on the second stimulus, government health care and cap and trade! More crap we can't afford!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Debt_and_Debt_%_to_GDP_-_2010_Budget.png

Up, up and up! Keep in mind this is only projected, and is pretty much guaranteed to actually be too low. The Dems seem awfully fixated on railing against Bush and the Rs for their "irresponsible spending" without looking in the mirror once and a while.

Pshaw...we ain't seen nothin' yet, and the Dems are out to show us what REAL out-of-control spending is!
Paying down the debt isn't in the budget because they can't even contain the deficit. It would be treading water if at least that could be contained but it can't so every year the situation gets worse.
 

RyanPaulShaffer

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,434
1
0
Paying down the debt isn't in the budget because they can't even contain the deficit. It would be treading water if at least that could be contained but it can't so every year the situation gets worse.
This chart I posted before seems to show that paying off our debt is considered in government spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

Notice the growing red part which is included as part of our federal spending (which we can't afford now and will be totally screwed in the coming decades unless we change things ASAP).

I mean, we gotta pay off China, Japan and others. I suppose we could eventually say, "Sorry, too bad so sad, but we're not paying you back!", but boy...the crap would really hit the fan then!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY