The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

3/5th votes for blacks. Hardcore originalism!

Why compromise there? Give them nothing. Reid will eventually agree to it anyway.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

3/5th votes for blacks. Hardcore originalism!

It's happening in our state sort of.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Anyone want to take a shot at when gold hits $2,000??

If you draw a trend line it'll it $2000 in 2013 Or earlier if we get some type of shock (like government default or more printing QE3-8) .

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GLD&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Apparently the bulk of the cuts is bring the troops back from Afghanistan and Iraq, versus leaving them there indefinitely, which the GOP has said is not a cut. I guess if it was off the books when they went over there it should be off the books when they come back... It also includes the $1.2T in cuts already agreed to separately by the Administration. So it sounds like Reid is offering a bag of magic beans in exchange for pushing the debt ceiling up until 2013. Will be fascinating to see what the GOP does with this in the morning.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Not before the shutdown they didn't. My point was we won't see anything happen here until after the date has passed. And yes the Democrats lost again. They always lose. Everyone knows you can't raise taxes on job creators.

I would have rather they stayed shut down than taken the deal Dayton took. At least we stuck it to those rich teachers and the overfunded school districts and didnt increase the revenues or anything! It is about time Minnesotans werent forced under the heel of the oppressive Independent School District Regime!

Oh and borrowing against the tobacco settlement is great too...I swear as soon as you are elected you lose 50 IQ points and all forms of logic.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I would have rather they stayed shut down than taken the deal Dayton took. At least we stuck it to those rich teachers and the overfunded school districts and didnt increase the revenues or anything! It is about time Minnesotans werent forced under the heel of the oppressive Independent School District Regime!

Oh and borrowing against the tobacco settlement is great too...I swear as soon as you are elected you lose 50 IQ points and all forms of logic.

We didn't raise taxes on job creators. That's ALL THAT MATTERS RIGHT NOW. Interesting that Reid's plan doesn't do that either and the tea party is still unhappy. I guess they not only want their cake but they also want to eat it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

We didn't raise taxes on job creators. That's ALL THAT MATTERS RIGHT NOW.

It's also important to keep the home mortgage deduction on summer homes worth over $250k. That's where job creators come up with some of their best idea for creating jobs.

 

[Rover]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Apparently the bulk of the cuts is bring the troops back from Afghanistan and Iraq, versus leaving them there indefinitely, which the GOP has said is not a cut. I guess if it was off the books when they went over there it should be off the books when they come back... It also includes the $1.2T in cuts already agreed to separately by the Administration. So it sounds like Reid is offering a bag of magic beans in exchange for pushing the debt ceiling up until 2013. Will be fascinating to see what the GOP does with this in the morning.

That's the problem with what's included in the "baseline" that the CBO uses to evaluate the size of the deficit reductions. Its the same thing as how do you take into account revenue increases. Is it vs current law or does a hypothetical expiration of Bush tax cuts? Frankly I don't even think that Congress knows.

Also, yes Harry Reid is absolutely useless. Weak Senate leadership has plagued the Dems since Robert Byrd switched from senate leader to head of appropriations. Don't forget before Reid the Dem leader was the equally useless Daschle. Its ironic that Pelosi passed in the House everything Obama asked for, Reid only needed 1 vote most of the time to block cloture and couldn't do it, and yet the Dems lose the House and keep the Senate.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

We didn't raise taxes on job creators. That's ALL THAT MATTERS RIGHT NOW. Interesting that Reid's plan doesn't do that either and the tea party is still unhappy. I guess they not only want their cake but they also want to eat it.

Of course they do, and the Dems will serve it to them on a silver platter and probably feed it to them. There should be a call of no confidence on the Dems and they should disband because they are nothing now. It was bad enough when they were spineless wimps, now they are just Republican lackeys.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Also, yes Harry Reid is absolutely useless. Weak Senate leadership has plagued the Dems since Robert Byrd switched from senate leader to head of appropriations. Don't forget before Reid the Dem leader was the equally useless Daschle. Its ironic that Pelosi passed in the House everything Obama asked for, Reid only needed 1 vote most of the time to block cloture and couldn't do it, and yet the Dems lose the House and keep the Senate.

Reid sucks, but he has two rules to deal with: cloture to end debate, and also the single senator rule where one member can anonymously put a hold on a bill (Senators who support the hold also don't like to invoke Cloture against it, so that often means you need more than 60 to end a hold). The Hold should definitely go, and getting rid of Cloture might be necessary in the long run because it's being abused more and more. It would be really easy to get rid of both: they are in the rules package which has to be renewed by each new Congress. Ironically, the reason they persist is respect for Senatorial tradition, but abuse and pandering on the rules erodes that very respect.

There hasn't been an effective Senate majority OR minority leader of either party since Bob Dole -- Daschel, Lott, Reid, Frist and McConnell have all proven utterly incompetent (well, to be fair to Lott, he was more criminal than incompetent) -- so it's likely that the Senate is just unworkable when it's heavily polarized. The House works best when it's completely transparent and the crazy is allowed to run free. The Senate works best as a closed, smoke-filled room where the real deals get done among the adults.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Aides said Mr. Boehner’s plan was a two-step process, with an immediate $1.2-trillion (U.S.) in cuts and spending caps coupled with a $900-billion debt ceiling increase, followed by creation of a congressional committee charged with producing nearly $2-trillion in additional cuts. The debt ceiling needs to be increased by about $2.4-trillion to last until 2013, the time frame that Mr. Obama and Democrats are insisting on, but which would not be immediately permitted under Mr. Boehner’s plan.

Instead, a second increase in the debt limit would have to be voted on next year, conditioned on congressional approval of the additional cuts.

So not only would we get to go through all this again, we'd be doing it in the midst of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. There's a great idea.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So not only would we get to go through all this again, we'd be doing it in the midst of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. There's a great idea.

Awesome. With any luck our economy will be back on track 20 years after the Chinese takeover.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Awesome. With any luck our economy will be back on track 20 years after the Chinese takeover.

About that...

I know this is a silly question, but has any Republican given any reason for preferring a short-term deal other than the political theater points it will win them during an election year? Can you see the rush to sign pledges?

Oh well; at least it will give everyone a clear choice in the general.

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You said flat out that Bush only had to deal with 2 of those, and that's not the case. People don't jump down your through for posting Bush, they jump down your throat for posting lies and inaccuracies.

Answer this question: During 2008 (Jan 1 to Dec 31), the US debt increased from $9.23 trillion to 10.70 trillion, an increase of nearly $1.5 trillion. How did the debt increase by 1.5 trillion if the deficit never exceeded 0.5 trillion (1.5 trillion > 0.5 trillion)?

The wars are winding down (however slowly). The bailouts are winding down. The stimulus package is winding down. The (supposedly temporary) tax cuts are not, and they need to go to increase government revenues to balance the federal budget.

The one thing of spending that Obama did do was the one time stimulus package, he isn't responsible for initiating the wars, medicare part D, the bailouts, the tax cuts, or the economic downturn. He inherited all of those when he became president.

You can come down from your high horse. It's incredulous to imply the reason people jumped over my post was because of "lies and inaccuracies" at the same time you were posting such "lies and inaccuracies". The truth is that Obama did do more than the one time stimulous package. That TARP bill that was signed by Bush, was approved by the majority of Democrats, including Obama. But more than that, he spent half that money. Bush only got approval to spend the first half, Obama got approval to spend the rest. Those Bush tax cuts were set to expire. They weren't extended by Bush, but rather by Obama. He could have easily vetoed them, but he didn't. You are just like everyone else on this board, and only point out the truth when it suits your needs.

Case in point; A few days ago Scooby repeated a lie he heard on some liberal news show that it was "common knowledge" the Bush economy netted zero jobs. Where were your truth detectors then? Either this was something you liberals beleive or something you want to beleive. So when I posted a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics that proved this was a bald face lie, once again I was jumped on for posting the wrong number. I used a number in a chart of dozens of numbers that was located just above the proper number. It still proved millions of jobs were created, but none the less, the liberal truth detectors jumped all over my 'defense' of Bush's job record.

Next came Keplers graph and his opinion that it showed that it was the wars and tax cuts that ruined the deficit. But if you looked at the deficit during Bush's terms and when the spending occurred, the deficit became 'unreasonable' after that spending. But rather than argue my point that it was the spending that busted the deficit, you argued that Obama didn't spend that money. For my point, it's irrelevant. If Bush spent all that money in the last year of his presidency, it still does not disprove that that spending was what busted the deficit.

As far as your question about the debt, my source is http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_deficit The chart I get my numbers from are for FISCAL years, not the calendar years you use.

Federal Deficit
Fiscal Years 1996 to 2016

Year GDP-US     Federal Deficit -fed
     $ billion       $ billion
1996   7838.5        107.56  a
1997   8332.4         22.08  a
1998   8793.5        -69.05  a
1999   9353.5       -125.41  a
2000   9951.5       -235.97  a
2001  10286.2       -127.89  a
2002  10642.3        158.01  a
2003  11142.1        377.81  a
2004  11867.8        412.90  a
2005  12638.4        318.59  a
2006  13398.9        248.57  a
2007  14077.6        160.96  a
2008  14441.4        458.55  a
2009  14119         1412.69  a
2010  14660.4       1293.49  a
2011  15079.6       1645.12  b

a is actual reported
b is estimated

So I figure that BUSH TARP money was spent in late 2008, early fiscal year 2009. This is only important to ideologues like yourself and irrelevant to my point on spending.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

So not only would we get to go through all this again, we'd be doing it in the midst of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. There's a great idea.

I read this as circus. Ha. It should be labeled a circus.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You can come down from your high horse. It's incredulous to imply the reason people jumped over my post was because of "lies and inaccuracies" at the same time you were posting such "lies and inaccuracies". So I figure that BUSH TARP money was spent in late 2008, early fiscal year 2009. This is only important to ideologues like yourself and irrelevant to my point on spending.

Does all that stuff you posted take into account that the Wars were not on the books until Obama took office? And, isn't that the ultimate cooking the books strategy? If the wars had been on the books we would have seen this coming sooner. If Medicare Prescription "D" had been passed with added taxes to pay for it we would have seen it coming sooner. If NCLB hadn't been an unfunded mandate we would have seen it coming sooner.

And did Obama just take the Bush financial situation at the roulette table and say in a loud voice, "let it ride"? No question.

As for his great jobs program, you will never convince me. His ENTIRE ECONOMY was based on vapor. And now 98-99% of us are suffering because of it. And I'm pretty sure that to many in his administration and the Congress that was the plan all along.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

As far as your question about the debt, my source is http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_deficit So I figure that BUSH TARP money was spent in late 2008, early fiscal year 2009. This is only important to ideologues like yourself and irrelevant to my point on spending.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com is NOT a government website, thus I questions the numbers are reported:

From Treasury Direct (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np)
US Federal Debt on Jan 20, 2000: 5,706,174,969,873.86
US Federal Debt on Jan 20, 2009: 10,626,877,048,913.08

Difference: 10,626,877,048,913.08-5,706,174,969,873.86= $4,920,702,079,039.22

From the day that GWB was sworn in as president and his last day in office, the federal debt increased by nearly $5 Trillion.

That is an AVERAGE increase of $615,087,759,879.90 per year on AVERAGE, thus the actual deficit AVERAGED at least $0.615 Trillion per year.

How is it possible for the national debt to increase by and average of $0.615T per year but never have the deficit exceed 0.5T? It isn't.


Again, EVERY politician (Both Democrat and Republican) carries some of the blame for this giant mess that we are in, period. To claim that the previous administration which over 8 years nearly doubled the national debt and left office with the country in the midst of the worst economic downturn in generations has nearly no responsibility for the current state of the nation.

 

[Rover]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com is NOT a government website, thus I questions the numbers are reported:

From Treasury Direct (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np)
US Federal Debt on Jan 20, 2000: 5,706,174,969,873.86
US Federal Debt on Jan 20, 2009: 10,626,877,048,913.08

Difference: 10,626,877,048,913.08-5,706,174,969,873.86= $4,920,702,079,039.22

From the day that GWB was sworn in as president and his last day in office, the federal debt increased by nearly $5 Trillion.

That is an AVERAGE increase of $615,087,759,879.90 per year on AVERAGE, thus the actual deficit AVERAGED at least $0.615 Trillion per year.

How is it possible for the national debt to increase by and average of $0.615T per year but never have the deficit exceed 0.5T? It isn't.


Again, EVERY politician (Both Democrat and Republican) carries some of the blame for this giant mess that we are in, period. To claim that the previous administration which over 8 years nearly doubled the national debt and left office with the country in the midst of the worst economic downturn in generations has nearly no responsibility for the current state of the nation.

And even this analysis gives Bush more credit than he deserves. He should not credit for Clinton's balanced 2000 fiscal year budget that stretched into 2001. Likewise, he doesn't get away with his massive debt ridden 2008 budget that stretched into fiscal year 2009 and hence gets stuck with Obama. By that measure he's looking at a cool 1Bn extra in deficits and that doesn't count the ongoing tax cuts, perscription drug benefit, and needless Iraq war that continue to incur deficit spending long after he was out of office.

 

[Almington]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

And even this analysis gives Bush more credit than he deserves. He should not credit for Clinton's balanced 2000 fiscal year budget that stretched into 2001. Likewise, he doesn't get away with his massive debt ridden 2008 budget that stretched into fiscal year 2009 and hence gets stuck with Obama. By that measure he's looking at a cool 1Bn extra in deficits and that doesn't count the ongoing tax cuts, perscription drug benefit, and needless Iraq war that continue to incur deficit spending long after he was out of office.

I know, but that's a conservative estimate of the spending that occurred while Bush was president, not an estimate of the cumulative and lasting effect of Bush policies on the deficit and debt.

I want Wol4ine to explain how the debt can increase by an average of $0.615T per year if the deficit never exceeded 0.5T per year during Bush's 4 years in office.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Boner criticizes Reid's plan because he doesn't cut entitlements.

Then Boner introduces his own plan that doesn't cut entitlements.

Wheeeeeee.