Snow to Congress...time to raise the debt ceiling again

[Engineer]

Click me!

Fiscal conservatism in action. Yep, we're reeling the debt in alright. I'll bold a portion of the included article on that notion. Throw in new tax breaks, 54% which go to people who "MAKE OVER $1,000,000" per year, huge Medicare prescription drug coverages (that seem to be helping business more than the average Joe on the street as businesses now cut prescription drug coverage from it's retirees), Iraq war funding still through the roof along with unchecked military spending ($27.00 for $0.89 ice tray comes to mind)... and this is what you get!!!

While it may be true that this year was the first in the last 5 or 6 that the debt didn't grow faster than GDP, there is no guarantee that it won't this year with an expected slowdown of GDP and a seemingly endless desire to spend, spend, spend by the nations elected DC officials thrown in with Bush's non ability to veto a single spending bill.....ever!!!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow warned lawmakers on Thursday that a legally set limit on the government's ability to borrow will be hit in mid-February and urged Congress to raise it quickly.


Failure to do so potentially risks throwing the country into its first default in history, Snow warned in what has become virtually an annual rite as U.S. borrowing needs spiral.

"The administration now projects that the statutory debt limit, currently $8.184 trillion, will be reached in mid-February 2006," Snow said in a letter to 21 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate released by Treasury after financial markets had closed.

Snow said that Treasury, if the debt limit was not raised by then, would have to take "extraordinary actions" to keep paying its bills for everything from Social Security to national defense spending.

Even if Treasury took "all available prudent and legal actions to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit, we anticipate that we can finance government operations no longer than mid-March."

The debt limit was last raised in November 2004 by $800 billion to its current level. The letter to Congress does not specify an amount the Treasury wants the ceiling set at this time.

But he said quick action was needed to preserve the U.S. ability to borrow in global capital markets at the lowest rates possible.

"A failure to increase the debt limit in a timely manner would threaten this unique and important position," Snow said.

The call for an increase in the debt ceiling typically provokes a round of criticism from opposition politicians over excessive government spending and the process is drawn out until nearly the last possible moment.

Treasury officials had said in November it was bracing for hefty borrowing needs in the January-March quarter, likely around a record $171 billion, and that it likely would hit the debt limit in that period.

Among other factors, the Treasury cited increased spending for rebuilding Gulf Coast areas hit hard by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

"Of the rich, for the rich, by the rich" 🙁

 

[Vic]

I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

I was going to say, start with Congress's salaries...they aren't worth 10% of what we're paying them.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

I was going to say, start with Congress's salaries...they aren't worth 10% of what we're paying them.

10%? Hell, I want a refund!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

I was going to say, start with Congress's salaries...they aren't worth 10% of what we're paying them.

The amount of all their salaries combined is scarcely a drop in the bucket of the deficit. Try to control your knee everytime it starts to jerk, eh?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

I was going to say, start with Congress's salaries...they aren't worth 10% of what we're paying them.

I agree with you, but unfortunetly those salaries are a drop in the bucket...

 

[sandorski]

Why even bother setting a limit if it's going to be changed regularly anyway? Perhaps someone should sitdown and calculate at what point the Debt will cause serious harm, then set the limit just shy of that point and make the limit unchangeable for 5 years or so. Then when the limit is near and the 5 years is not up, Government is forced to really deal with it's issues.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Why even bother setting a limit if it's going to be changed regularly anyway? Perhaps someone should sitdown and calculate at what point the Debt will cause serious harm, then set the limit just shy of that point and make the limit unchangeable for 5 years or so. Then when the limit is near and the 5 years is not up, Government is forced to really deal with it's issues.

Good point. You're exactly right...what good is a limit that has no end? Routinely raising the limit does nothing except wasting time if there are no consequences to keeping the debt below the current set limit. Excellent point.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

I was going to say, start with Congress's salaries...they aren't worth 10% of what we're paying them.

The amount of all their salaries combined is scarcely a drop in the bucket of the deficit. Try to control your knee everytime it starts to jerk, eh?

:roll: No sh!t sherlock. But the problem is Congress... they're responsible for spending authorizations and they're worthless at anything except running up the national credit card.

 

[dahunan]

Has the limit ever been raised this many times under one administration .. without the overall GDP growing < or is it?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

I was going to say, start with Congress's salaries...they aren't worth 10% of what we're paying them.

The amount of all their salaries combined is scarcely a drop in the bucket of the deficit. Try to control your knee everytime it starts to jerk, eh?

:roll: No sh!t sherlock. But the problem is Congress... they're responsible for spending authorizations and they're worthless at anything except running up the national credit card.

I think their salaries should be based on their performance. Obviously they don't know how to be fiscally responsible so we can start cutting costs by cutting their salaries. I say we should cut it by the percentage they overspend. Say they spend 15% more than they get in revenue, they get a 15% pay cut.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

I think their salaries should be based on their performance. Obviously they don't know how to be fiscally responsible so we can start cutting costs by cutting their salaries. I say we should cut it by the percentage they overspend. Say they spend 15% more than they get in revenue, they get a 15% pay cut.

But you're talking about multi-millionaires. They could care less about $160,000 pay. It's about the power, not the money (at least money paid in salary).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

I think their salaries should be based on their performance. Obviously they don't know how to be fiscally responsible so we can start cutting costs by cutting their salaries. I say we should cut it by the percentage they overspend. Say they spend 15% more than they get in revenue, they get a 15% pay cut.

But you're talking about multi-millionaires. They could care less about $160,000 pay. It's about the power, not the money (at least money paid in salary).

Can you even cut their pay? AFAIK they set their own pay. The only way to fix this situation is to Fire them, which you can do.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

I think their salaries should be based on their performance. Obviously they don't know how to be fiscally responsible so we can start cutting costs by cutting their salaries. I say we should cut it by the percentage they overspend. Say they spend 15% more than they get in revenue, they get a 15% pay cut.

But you're talking about multi-millionaires. They could care less about $160,000 pay. It's about the power, not the money (at least money paid in salary).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly,

Something is a little strange when millions of dollars of capaign contributions are required
to secure a job worth a tiny fraction of whats spent to get the job.

So we have the best government money can buy and keep putting the tab on the national credit card. One fine day our creditors will cut us off.

Or interest rates will rise enough to eliminate any spending at all---the whole budgit will go towards servicing the debt. Hyperinflation will be the only answer unless our creditors get smart and denominate the debt in other currencies.

Meanwhile------and in the words of the immortal Spumoni of Fast times at Ridgemont High---------" Lets party "

And the wise will know its coming when you see the backpage 20 point type blurb in the papaer that the Chinese are starting to lend us money denominated in their currency.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I think their salaries should be based on their performance. Obviously they don't know how to be fiscally responsible so we can start cutting costs by cutting their salaries. I say we should cut it by the percentage they overspend. Say they spend 15% more than they get in revenue, they get a 15% pay cut.

Their salaries are not based on performance but their jobs are. We are talking about elected officials after all. They can be voted out.

Text
Amendment XXVII: Congressional salaries
The Twenty-Seventh Amendment was proposed on September 25, 1789, and ratified on May 7, 1992.

No Law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The purpose of the debt limit I imagine is to make sure that public attention is brought to overspending. It doesn't stop the overspending, of course, but the public is made aware of it everytime Congress has to raise the debt limit. Without the debt limit, I imagine that this level of awareness would not exist.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I think their salaries should be based on their performance. Obviously they don't know how to be fiscally responsible so we can start cutting costs by cutting their salaries. I say we should cut it by the percentage they overspend. Say they spend 15% more than they get in revenue, they get a 15% pay cut.

Their salaries are not based on performance but their jobs are. We are talking about elected officials after all. They can be voted out.

Text
Amendment XXVII: Congressional salaries
The Twenty-Seventh Amendment was proposed on September 25, 1789, and ratified on May 7, 1992.

No Law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The purpose of the debt limit I imagine is to make sure that public attention is brought to overspending. It doesn't stop the overspending, of course, but the public is made aware of it everytime Congress has to raise the debt limit. Without the debt limit, I imagine that this level of awareness would not exist.

LOL, but the general public as adopted DC's ways and are overspending (for the most part) themselves. Monkey see...monkey do! 😛

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

States that are already crimped fiscally? States that have many municipalities bumping their statutory limits on property taxes to help their funding? States that are cutting healthcare coverage for the poor as their budgets are being cut?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Here's a thought, what's the biggest aspect of the US budget right now (aside from mandatory obligations of SS and Medicare?)

 

[OrganizedChaos]

i'd like to see the the democrats fillibuster it until the president and the two majority leaders come up with a balanced budget. I'm willing to bet these congressman could figure something out if they were threatend with a political suicide bombing.

 

[Lemon law]

The problem is still with the voters----we love politicians that play santa claus. Delivering a
dollar of government services for seventy five cents.

When the voters get serious and throw the rascals out this practice of putting it on the
national credit card might stop---------not until.--if you believe in rational politicians.

The smart money is on reform coming from creditors who simply refuse to extend more credit to
a nation addicted to debt.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

States that are already crimped fiscally? States that have many municipalities bumping their statutory limits on property taxes to help their funding? States that are cutting healthcare coverage for the poor as their budgets are being cut?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Here's a thought, what's the biggest aspect of the US budget right now (aside from mandatory obligations of SS and Medicare?)

Yes, conjur, I'm calling for an end to the fiscal sleight-of-hand where your federal tax dollars go to pay for state and local budgets, other than your own, all across the country, giving the federal government far too much power on that level and Congress the magic of pork.
As to your "OMG the state budgets!!" what difference does it make if you pay your state directly or you pay the feds who might getting around to paying your state if, and only if, your state has the proper amount of favor on the Hill? And then only with string after string attached? Would it not be better if you paid your state directly?
Meh. I don't expect you to understand.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The problem is still with the voters----we love politicians that play santa claus. Delivering a
dollar of government services for seventy five cents.

When the voters get serious and throw the rascals out this practice of putting it on the
national credit card might stop---------not until.--if you believe in rational politicians.

The smart money is on reform coming from creditors who simply refuse to extend more credit to
a nation addicted to debt.

Yep. Bread and circuses. Bread and circuses.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

States that are already crimped fiscally? States that have many municipalities bumping their statutory limits on property taxes to help their funding? States that are cutting healthcare coverage for the poor as their budgets are being cut?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Here's a thought, what's the biggest aspect of the US budget right now (aside from mandatory obligations of SS and Medicare?)

Yes, conjur, I'm calling for an end to the fiscal sleight-of-hand where your federal tax dollars go to pay for state and local budgets, other than your own, all across the country, giving the federal government far too much power on that level and Congress the magic of pork.
As to your "OMG the state budgets!!" what difference does it make if you pay your state directly or you pay the feds who might getting around to paying your state if, and only if, your state has the proper amount of favor on the Hill? And then only with string after string attached? Would it not be better if you paid your state directly?
Meh. I don't expect you to understand.

Yeah, as we all know every state is able to pay for, say, massive road projects (like much-needed bridges) that will cost billions.

 

[Engineer]

Vic,

Boy, a lot of those states that are subsudized by other states in terms of tax dollars would really be screaming "red"! :laugh:

Oh wait, my state would be too! :shocked:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm all for spending cuts. I think we should start at the federal outlays to the various states.

States that are already crimped fiscally? States that have many municipalities bumping their statutory limits on property taxes to help their funding? States that are cutting healthcare coverage for the poor as their budgets are being cut?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Here's a thought, what's the biggest aspect of the US budget right now (aside from mandatory obligations of SS and Medicare?)

Yes, conjur, I'm calling for an end to the fiscal sleight-of-hand where your federal tax dollars go to pay for state and local budgets, other than your own, all across the country, giving the federal government far too much power on that level and Congress the magic of pork.
As to your "OMG the state budgets!!" what difference does it make if you pay your state directly or you pay the feds who might getting around to paying your state if, and only if, your state has the proper amount of favor on the Hill? And then only with string after string attached? Would it not be better if you paid your state directly?
Meh. I don't expect you to understand.

Yeah, as we all know every state is able to pay for, say, massive road projects (like much-needed bridges) that will cost billions.

And you think they don't already? 😛

Like I said, I didn't expect you to be able to understand the fiscal sleight-of-hand involved here.