U.S. Eats Up Most of Debt Limit in One Day

[Vecanti]

I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I didn't hate Bush and I don't hate Obama. I think it's funny/sad how the one side immediately starts blaming the other side as soon as the "President" takes office though. Like the "bailout". Bush bailout, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
where he gave $700 billion to banks more less. Was this good or bad? I don't know.

I do know when Obama took office though all I heard about on the news as well as from many people I know was how Obama was ruining our country by giving Billions of tax dollars to banks and corporations! Uh?

Back on topic, this whole "Raise the debt ceiling" thing is a media joke. Not saying it not important overall, but seriously how many times has the debt ceiling been raised? 1000s! What was the debt ceiling 200 years ago? 100 years ago? 10 years ago?

While Bush was president he raised the debit ceiling 7 times! For TRILLIONS of dollars. Did you hear it once on the news? I'm not saying he didn't need to or it wasn't the right thing for to do. I have no idea. I bow to his knowledge. But I'm talking about the media here. This is a media game guys.

George Bush Debt Limit Raises:

P.L. 107-199
June 28th, 2002
New Limit: $6.4 trillion
Increase in Limit: $450 billion

P.L. 108-24
May 27th, 2003
New Limit: $7.384 trillion
Increase in Limit: $984 billion

P.L. 108-415
November 19th, 2004
New Limit: $8.184 trillion
Increase in Limit: $800 billion

P.L. 109-182
March 20th, 2006
New Limit: $8.965 trillion
Increase in Limit: $781 billion

P.L. 110-91
September 29th, 2007
New Limit: $9.815 trillion
Increase in Limit: $850 billion

P.L. 110-289
July 30th, 2008
New Limit: $10.615 trillion
Increase in Limit: $800 billion

P.L. 110-343
October 3rd, 2008
New Limit: $11.315 trillion
Increase in Limit: $700 billion

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

If anything, it is now a anti-business environment and few are stupid enough to create more jobs in such an environment.

Anti-whose-business? The big businesses that have paid the big bucks for the politicians are doing great. Sure, they may be dumping workers but that doesn't mean they aren't doing great. But the little businesses, they are suffering by design. The big businesses don't want the competition so that's why they write the bills they write. But that's what you want, isn't it? You want these big business rich elites to have more power and to keep more of the money that gives them that power and to not go to jail for breaking laws that would send any of us to jail.

Yes, US military is under paid.

The US military where government workers make less than a tenth of what they would make in the private sector (like working for one of ex-president Cheney's ex-companies or Prince's Xe Corp.)
So here you are arguing that government workers are underpaid.

Lets look 2008 numbers: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm#chart and specifically the average Fed Worker's benefit package is $41K vs Private Worker's $10K, yet the little guy is paying taxes to the government employee who is making how much more then him when combining pay and benefits?

So I'll ask you again - were you overpaid and, if so, when are you going to give the money back to the taxpayers?

Problem is for your Progressive ideaology is that it doesn't look that good when you look at things close up. Teachers, like the average in WI making over $100K (pay plus benefits)

So do you propose that the government should lower the taxes that those relatively well-to-do teachers pay? Is that the way to improve the situation?
Those teachers pay more taxes than the guy earning $50k

What should those earning $250K be paying in total (Federal and State) taxes? I'm not talking billionaires, they know how to limit taxes [...]

People who make more should pay more because they have more disposable money - that is they have proportionately more than necessary for the basics. It's absolutely fair to ask those with more to pay more. And as for the billionaires - you SHOULD be talking about them because they are the people who are killing everything. If those billions were spread around and in the hands of regular folk they could still be invested in aggregate to the same degree or they could be spent into the economy - which is preferable. The government can find ways to close loopholes but you are right about the money moving. That isn't a reason to do nothing but it shows the sorry state of world governments when they have ceded so much of their economic sovereignty to international banks.

 

[faethor]

@Dammy

Teachers, like the average in WI making over $100K (pay plus benefits)

Not a true fact. That was cited as the average salary for teachers in Milwaukee. It's a big city, for Wisconsin. The school district tends toward the older workers (late 40s and 50s). Exactly what guys in your age group should be doing instead of being fired and laid off in droves. Of this teachers make about $56K on average the rest is benefits. This is below the average salary for the city. http://www.salarylist.com/city/Milwaukee-WI-Salary.htm Which is $65K.

The benefit here comes in benefits. And I don't know about you but I certainly can't balance a household budget on benefits. They are things like retirement (future) and medical. If I don't use them or do use them there's little to no change in my now. Again have you had any accounting? You'd realize the blantant unfairness of claiming benefits as income.

So here we have 'overpaid' teachers making less than the average salary in the city. --- IMO the school district and union can work to get lower cost benefits and save money. Gutting salaries is the wrong answer as it's not the problem.

And getting back to the 'average in Wi' claim. Again not Wi but Milwaukee. Across the state there are towns paid much less. Clearly the state average salary + benefit for a teacher is not $100K. You took an example of the few extreme and made an overarching claim which was false.

 

[Dammy]

Since this began prior to Obama's swearing in and prior to Obama's budget it's fair to share the blame. I'd argue even if the President did the most good in 2 years it's fairly difficult to fix 30+ years of bad decisions that came before.

That's fine, we can forget about the $9.9T in prior deficits over the past 240 years. We can focus exclusively on his $5T that he and the Democrat controlled House and Senate spent like there was no tomorrow.

I'm doubtful as weeks before the raising of the debt ceiling McCain asked for exactly that.

He wouldn't need to, his budgets would have been at worse Bush level of stupidity, which was about half trillion @ year of deficit spending.

Didn't McCain get more votes than Reagan?

1980:
Reagan: 43,903,230 (489 electoral votes)
Carter: 35,480,115 (49 electoral votes)
Anderson: 5,719,850 (0 electoral votes)

1984:
Reagan: 54,455,472 (525 electoral votes)
Mondale: 37,577,352 (13 electoral votes)

2008:
Obama: 69,456,897 (369 electoral votes)
McCain: 59,934,814 (173 electoral votes)

Yes, McCain did have more votes, but consider the population increase over 24 years, it's not that impressive to talk about. I will point out the key is electoral votes, and Reagan just kicked ass in both elections. Obama did very well especially in the states that had heavy electoral votes, but McCain won more over all counties.

It wasn't a failure of 'conservatives'.

Sure it was, McCain was never considered a conservative by the GOP. He's Moderate at best and Progressive when the conservatives can't keep an eye on him. As I said, I only voted for him because of his VP choice, else I would never have voted for that loony.

It was a failure of the Republican party whose demographic tends to be white, old, and male. If the minorities and women can be encouraged to vote they don't vote Republican.

Didn't help McCain that alot of conservatives sat out that race after the Foley incident a few weeks prior to the election.

This is why Republicans front policy after policy to prevent voters. See Wisconsin for a recent good example. Republicans demand photo ID then shutdown the photo ID stations in areas that are predominately Democratic. Republicans ran candidates as Democratics trying to upserp the possibility that the white old foggy might lose.

So your saying that Democrats lost because they couldn't pull of voter fraud? Or are you saying a rural state like WI, no one has photo IDs? I always have to show my ID to vote, what's the big deal? Try to go to a Dr office in FL and not have a photo ID an see if you can still see the Dr (less it's an emergency of course). The very idea that the "poor" (who likely own a car) don't have any ID is laughable. How do they apply for welfare with out a ID? How do you cash a welfare check without a ID? Amazing.

 

[metalman]

 

[redrumloa]

@metalman

 

[faethor]

That's fine, we can forget about the $9.9T in prior deficits over the past 240 years. We can focus exclusively on his $5T that he and the Democrat controlled House and Senate spent like there was no tomorrow.

Again inherited policies and programs. The debt is larger under Obama because neither the party turned back the old programs. Who really spent more on new programs?

One note is even with the increase in Healthcare costs the CBO estimates about a 10% savings vs doing nothing. Remember how huge a bug in the Republican butt is turn away what they claim is wasteful spending but results in savings? Yeah again conservative Republicans - not so much.

He wouldn't need to, his budgets would have been at worse Bush level of stupidity, which was about half trillion @ year of deficit spending.

Presidents inherit the costs and programs of their predecessors. The 1/2 trillion per year would be spending increases. So add Bush's $5Trillion not with another 1.5 over a decade but 2 over 4 years. OUCH! Again McCain was even asking now to increase spending and the debt limit. If he was this moderate you claim he'd be pulling back. This is not surprise. We see Reagan tripling debt, Bush doubling Debt. Again which president made positive gains in debt vs GDP in the last 50 years. - yeah not any Republicans.

Yes, McCain did have more votes, but consider the population increase over 24 years, it's not that impressive to talk about. I will point out the key is electoral votes, and Reagan just kicked ass in both elections. Obama did very well especially in the states that had heavy electoral votes, but McCain won more over all counties.

While electorial votes win elections if you really want to know how popular a candidate is/isn't you must count popular vote.

As I said, I only voted for him because of his VP choice, else I would never have voted for that loony.

McCain's the loon and Palin was the rational and better choice.

Or are you saying a rural state like WI, no one has photo IDs?

I think you need to read up on the depth of the election fraud going on in Wisconsin. Certainly quite a bit is to try and eliminate Democratic voters at the poles. Photo ID is but one thing. The costs are estimated over $6 Million to 'solve' a problem that isn't a problem. There are nearly no voter fraud charges. Though in bitter irony the legislative aid of the Republican Co-Sponor of the Voter-ID bill appears to be, being charged.

 

[Vecanti]

@metalman

Videos

Those videos are funny but I see nothing different there than those of the videos of the oil execs in front of congress. Except the oil execs are lined up to get checks not for $200 but for $2,000,000,000.00

Sure it's funny how ignorant some people are in those videos. But it's not any more ignorant than giving billions of tax payers dollars to companies that are already making 100s of billions of dollars just so the CEOs can snort a little extra coke of some hookers tits.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

But it's not any more ignorant than giving billions of tax payers dollars to companies that are already making 100s of billions of dollars just so the CEOs can snort a little extra coke of some hookers tits.

You know, if that was what they were doing with the money I guess I could forgive them but instead they are using the money to screw every man, woman and child in the country.

 

[faethor]

We hear time and again all this talk about higher taxes on the top 1% that 72% of the citizens agree with. Well, perhaps some billionaires can explain better how they're getting a better deal than most Americans.

Republican Presidential candidate votes against raising the debt ceiling. Then blames Obama for the drop in credit rating. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/candidates-give-obama-an-f-for-aa-rating/ Do you really want a President that doesn't understand this economic relationship?

 

[Dammy]

Anti-whose-business? The big businesses that have paid the big bucks for the politicians are doing great. Sure, they may be dumping workers but that doesn't mean they aren't doing great. But the little businesses, they are suffering by design. The big businesses don't want the competition so that's why they write the bills they write. But that's what you want, isn't it? You want these big business rich elites to have more power and to keep more of the money that gives them that power and to not go to jail for breaking laws that would send any of us to jail.

Problem is not all are big multi-national corporations funded by Soros. If you make the environment bad for them, you are also making the business environment bad for all, including the little guys trying to make a go of it. For some reason, Progressives just hate business and think it should be all completely controlled by a central government, whyzzat?

Again, you make it sound so (un)believable that I'm pulling for the elites who are pulling the strings in mega corps as well as US government, I'm not. I'm all for these huge corps failing when their time comes. Progressives, be they in GOP and Democrat party, have some bizzare "too big to fail" ideology that runs counter to how capitalism is supposed to run. I'm all for firms on Wall Street folding if they screw up, that is how it's supposed to be unlike Bush/Obama supporting them with my tax money.

The US military where government workers make less than a tenth of what they would make in the private sector (like working for one of ex-president Cheney's ex-companies or Prince's Xe Corp.)
So here you are arguing that government workers are underpaid.

Typically the uniformed employees are the ones who get the least, it's the paper shufflers who generally make the big money. Say, isn't that one of your arguements against business, the little guy isn't making what management is making?

So I'll ask you again - were you overpaid and, if so, when are you going to give the money back to the taxpayers?

Sure was I over paid, and over taxed. I was over worked as well, Rural Carriers are treated like dirt do atleast 40% more work then a uniform City Carrier on a day to day basis. Sure I'll give part of it back, it'll be worthless paper in a few months. Wait, I may need more toilet paper by then, hmmm. When I pay that back, does the IRS and SSA give me a rebate on the taxes I paid on the over payment?

So do you propose that the government should lower the taxes that those relatively well-to-do teachers pay? Is that the way to improve the situation? Those teachers pay more taxes than the guy earning $50k

Yes, lower their taxes. Raising their taxes would be an exercise in Keynesian futility, doesn't create new jobs and just encourages more taxation which will still not lead to new jobs but job destruction.

People who make more should pay more because they have more disposable money - that is they have proportionately more than necessary for the basics. It's absolutely fair to ask those with more to pay more. And as for the billionaires - you SHOULD be talking about them because they are the people who are killing everything. If those billions were spread around and in the hands of regular folk they could still be invested in aggregate to the same degree or they could be spent into the economy - which is preferable. The government can find ways to close loopholes but you are right about the money moving. That isn't a reason to do nothing but it shows the sorry state of world governments when they have ceded so much of their economic sovereignty to international banks.

Nope, that is unfair to the 1% who pay 40% of all income taxes and unfair to the 49% who pay zero taxes. We all need to pitch in and pay the same rate, that's sharing the responsibility even though the 49% are getting benefit from the majority of the government services paid for by those who actually pay taxes.

To be fair to everyone, those who are receiving government benefits/services and those who do not, a flat tax (income or VAT but not both!) is the only way to encourage investments while paying taxes to keep those benefits and service operational. But the problem is of course the super elites (typically Democrat supporters like Soros) won't have that, they would have to pay real taxes as would tax cheats like Obama's friend and supporter, GE who paid nothing on $5B in profits. Doesn't that seem fair that those who vote (directly or indirectly via representation) on how taxes are divided up also pay taxes, even if it's a very modest sum?

So what is the taxes like in Canada? I'm sure it's a perfect balance and we all can learn from it.

 

[Dammy]

We hear time and again all this talk about higher taxes on the top 1% that 72% of the citizens agree with. Well, perhaps some billionaires can explain better how they're getting a better deal than most Americans.

Problem with that of course, you are intentionally looking over the IRS tax tables. $250K is not a billionaire. If you Progressives were serious about going after the rich, which are supporting your causes, then you would be demanding a new tax bracket for the billionaires. Let me even go a step further if the Progressives were really anti-wealthy (that support their causes, like Soro's tens of millions spent on supporting Democrat elections), why have we not heard one peep about a wealth tax? Hrm?

Republican Presidential candidate votes against raising the debt ceiling. Then blames Obama for the drop in credit rating. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/candidates-give-obama-an-f-for-aa-rating/ Do you really want a President that doesn't understand this economic relationship?

Nice try, but you (intentionally?) failed to mention she wanted a real cut in deficit spending that would go towards a balance budget within a reasonable time period. All this bull crap bill was lowering the national debt from $24T to $22T by 2022. That is the reason why they are lowering the bond ratings on America, the only serious plans to get spending under control was told it was loudly pronounced DOA by Obama and Reid. You failed to mentioned that, why?

Let me start a new thread, I have a question for you Progressives on the National Debt.

 

[Robert]

What's a Progressive?

 

[faethor]

Problem with that of course, you are intentionally looking over the IRS tax tables. $250K is not a billionaire.

Okay we can do that. The maximum amount of social security tax is $106,800 at 12%. So if 1 person is making $250K they are paying 12% less tax than 2 people making about the same amount of money. Now if the 2 people are working say construction with the sweat of their brow they'll see about a 30% tax. If the 1 person is sitting on their butt investing other people money and taking a share they'll see about 15% tax. So we have 2 people making about $110K each paying close to 45%. While 1 person who makes $250K gets to pay close to about 19.5%. Yeah that $250K person is getting a raw deal. I think it's you that is intenntionally looking over the IRS tax tables.

If you Progressives were serious about going after the rich, which are supporting your causes, then you would be demanding a new tax bracket for the billionaires.

Which about 72% of the population polls as supporting an increase in taxation. Also many billionaires, such as Gates, do support a much steeper tax bracket for billionaires.

BTW - all the crap about Soros does the one world government -- all it does it make you look like a conspiracy nutter. No sense talking semi-rationally about that subject with you. You're convinced of this worldwide sonspiracy. Enjoy.

. All this bull crap bill was lowering the national debt from $24T to $22T by 2022. That is the reason why they are lowering the bond ratings on America, the only serious plans to get spending under control was told it was loudly pronounced DOA by Obama and Reid. You failed to mentioned that, why?

Let's look at what the S&P says for their reason to lower the bond rating. "We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues." -- Even they realize balancing will require cuts and increases, at least to pre-Bush taxation levels to make up the losses of the Bush programs.

 

[Vecanti]

What's a Progressive?

Hmm... Maybe?

 

[Robert]

Hmm... Maybe?

S'all Flo's fault.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Let me even go a step further if the Progressives were really anti-wealthy (that support their causes, like Soro's tens of millions spent on supporting Democrat elections), why have we not heard one peep about a wealth tax? Hrm?

You have not heard a peep about a wealth tax because you do not associate with any progressives. Progressive suggestions for a wealth tax, or for a Tobin tax, or for other tax changes are ignored by the "liberal" media because such changes would hurt the owners of those "liberal" media corporations. Heck, it might even hurt people like multimillion dollar a year talking heads like Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.
Real progressive legislation isn't allowed anywhere near the government (they don't want a wealth tax just like they didn't want a public option). You don't hear progressive positions because there is no effective left in the government or the media. If there were then you WOULD hear about these things. You don't.