• 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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
IIRC PJBLABBER became active during the election. I know several modern 'fiscal conservatives' who act the same way as PJBLABBER regarding Obama. They never once mentioned anything about our budgets or deficits when GWB was in office. Now they send me the same kind of copy/pasted crap with hair-on-fire enthusiasm and FUD. I'll say the same thing to PJBLABBER that I say to them - the timing of your 'enlightenment' is very convenient.
Calling me out are you? I started posting here on P&N when I was killing time on a working vacation, has it been that long ago? I have since decided to take a semi-retirement to do more writing and consulting and that gives me PLENTY of time to get back at ya!

I was working overseas a good part of the Bush terms. Asia and Europe had other distractions for me than what I find here. For what it is worth, IF I were active here during the Bush Adminstration I would have been equally vocal then about increases in national debt.

The fact is, Bush had 7 very good economic years and it fell apart at the end of the eighth. In no small part due to the Democrats meddling in the financial markets. Why not lay the real blame where it belongs, on guys like Dodd and Frank and their strong arm pushes to expand sub-prime lending at all costs.

Face it - Obama, Pelosi and Reid are fiscal crack addicts. There is not a Democrat special interest program that they don't love and don't you dare pull aside the curtain, Dorothy!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,106
24,643
136
The fact is, Bush had 7 very good economic years and it fell apart at the end of the eighth. In no small part due to the Democrats meddling in the financial markets. Why not lay the real blame where it belongs, on guys like Dodd and Frank and their strong arm pushes to expand sub-prime lending at all costs.

Face it - Obama, Pelosi and Reid are fiscal crack addicts. There is not a Democrat special interest program that they don't love and don't you dare pull aside the curtain, Dorothy!
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. This has been gone over many times on here, please use the search function and educate yourself.

Bush's years were built on a credit bubble and the bubble burst. There was very little actual economic growth. It's not '7 good years and one bad one', it's 'the logical conclusion'.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Again, guys, presidents do not normally spend money. A president submits a budget to Congress. Congress does not just vote on and pass that budget, Congress crafts various bills appropriating money for various purposes according to its own wants and priorities. If the president is of the same party then Congress may take his suggestions into account, but they almost always add their own priorities as well. In the case of Clinton every budget he sent the Republican Congress was DOA; the Republicans consistently spent less than Clinton wanted (although in the short time he had the line item veto Clinton did cut tens of millions in pork.)

Bottom line, the same Republican Congress that spent so irresponsibly under Bush (who vetoed no spending bills whatsoever) was the Congress responsible for spending so responsibly under Clinton (who vetoed spending bills only where he thought the cuts were too deep - although of course being Washington there were almost no cuts, just reductions in the rate of growth.) The same Democrat Congress that is spending so irresponsibly under Bush is the Congress spending so irresponsibly now under Obama.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Time's up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5987341.shtml

U.S. National Debt Tops Debt Limit

The latest calculation of the National Debt as posted by the Treasury Department has - at least numerically - exceeded the statutory Debt Limit approved by Congress last February as part of the Recovery Act stimulus bill.

The ceiling was set at $12.104 trillion dollars. The latest posting by Treasury shows the National Debt at nearly $12.135 trillion.

A senior Treasury official told CBS News that the department has some "extraordinary accounting tools" it can use to give the government breathing room in the range of $150-billion when the Debt exceeds the Debt Ceiling.

Were it not for those "tools," the U.S. Government would not have the statutory authority to borrow any more money. It might block issuance of Social Security checks and require a shutdown of some parts of the federal government.

Pending in Congress is a measure to increase the Debt Limit by $290 billion, which amounts to six more weeks of routine borrowing for the federal government. (The House just passed the increase, though the Senate has yet to act.)

Republicans and conservative Democrats blocked moves by House leaders to pass a $1.8 trillion dollar increase in the Debt Limit so the Democratic majority would not have to face the embarrassment of raising the Debt Limit yet again before next November's midterm elections.

The Debt Limit has been raised about a hundred times since 1940, when it was $49 billion - about five days worth of federal spending now.

The White House projects a record $1.5 trillion dollars deficit this year alone, and a 5-year deficit total of $4.97 trillion.

The Debt figure goes up and down on a daily basis based on government borrowing and revenue.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
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
Wow thank you for that tidbit. I feel all better now knowing that since other administrations ran up the debt that it is okay that the U.S government keep up its spending orgy. So what if Obama and the democratic congress run it up at record pace... b...b...b..but Bush.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Not an illustration, but an interesting list of what "A Billion Here, A Billion There" really means.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/billion.htm

If you're like me, you probably have four categories of money:

1. the price of a beer,
2. too much for a beer,
3. rent, and
4. far beyond my ability to comprehend.

I finally decided to sit down and try to comprehend that fourth category by lining up all the examples of high finance I could find. Some attempts to make a billion dollars comprehensible would go from the bottom up and explain how many of your everyday purchases you could get with a billion dollars (700,000 PCs or something).

Instead, I'm going from the top down because, frankly, a billion dollars and you exist in entirely different universes. There is nothing in your life that compares to a billion dollars. Even if you're a millionaire, you'd have to live a thousand years to earn a billion. The only way to comprehend billions of dollars is in relation to other billions of dollars.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Wow thank you for that tidbit. I feel all better now knowing that since other administrations ran up the debt that it is okay that the U.S government keep up its spending orgy. So what if Obama and the democratic congress run it up at record pace... b...b...b..but Bush.
I can't believe you're still defending bush. He's not the president anymore. Just let it go. No matter how much revision is attempted, he was the worst president in u.s. history. Better luck next time.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS