House seeks debt limit increase to $10.2 trillion

[bishop]

it's that time again...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/House_seeks_debt_limit_increase_to__03142008.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The government's debt limit would be raised to $10.2 trillion under a budget plan for next year approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House's fiscal 2009 budget, which passed on Thursday, would increase U.S. borrowing authority by $385 billion from the current limit of $9.815 trillion, according to the House Budget Committee.

The Senate on Friday passed its own version of a fiscal 2009 budget that did not address the question of raising federal borrowing authority.

The two chambers in coming weeks are expected to try to work out their differences and then pass a budget for next year that would spend $3 trillion while projecting a deficit in the range of $340 billion to $366 billion for the year.

It is not clear whether negotiators will adjust the House's proposed $10.2 trillion debt limit.

Large annual deficits have caused the federal debt to climb steeply since President George W. Bush took office, rising from $5.6 trillion in January, 2001, to $9.3 trillion on Wednesday.

Congress last approved an increase in Washington's borrowing authority last September, increasing the credit limit by $850 billion.

Some lawmakers recently have estimated that the Treasury Department could bump up against the current $9.815 trillion limit either shortly after November presidential and congressional elections or early next year, depending on revenues and economic performance.

[Elrathin]

Our economy is on nothing but a flimsy house of cards ready to tumble.

[bishop]

do you realistically see mccain, clinton or obama doing ANYTHING to correct that situation?

[Elrathin]

No, but I do see McCain making it worse with another war.

[Scribbler1]

They'll get what they want, as usual. Congress could raise the debt limit to 500 Quadrillion dollars and the morons won't give a damn as long as they still have money in their pockets.

Don't worry. Be happy.

[bishop]

so this boils down to an issue of bad vs. worse, eh? in the long run, it doesn't make a difference so long as the debt continues to climb unabated. also, there are plenty of other ways to pile on the debt than war, as was clearly shown during reagan's presidency. those lofty promises of universal healthcare aren't going to be cheap.

http://www.inevitablebacklash.com/media/warcostsvs.gif

[Elrathin]

so this boils down to an issue of bad vs. worse, eh? in the long run, it doesn't make a difference so long as the debt continues to climb unabated. also, there are plenty of other ways to pile on the debt than war, as was clearly shown during reagan's presidency. those lofty promises of universal healthcare aren't going to be cheap.

http://www.inevitablebacklash.com/media/warcostsvs.gif


I agree, but there is more chance of McCain getting us into another war than Hillary's Healthcare plan getting off the ground.

[bishop]

i do agree with your point in general, although i don't see how mccain is more likely to go to war with iran than clinton. her rhetoric and voting record don't show any difference with mccain in terms of the relative likelihood of starting up another war. and through the debates, she's taken a foreign policy posture that's very much in line with the status quo - not to mention criticizing obama for suggesting that he'd move for normalizing relations with the iranians without imposing preconditions.

[Elrathin]

Given the situation in Iraq, I don't see Clinton going to war with Iran short of Iran declaring war with the U.S. which I don't see ever happening.

McCain on the other hand with his childish "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" comments, I see as a much more likely scenario because it doesn't seem he wants proof, but action. We don't need another war when we are still fighting two.[hr]I will say Bishop I agree with your assessment though that not much will change with decreasing debt. My choice right now is just who will make it less worse. Unless Hillary pulls out something from her ass, Obama should be the Dem candidate and that will be whom I support.

Nader I don't feel is in it for the good of the country, but just to be an obsticle for one of the other parties. He could have been campaigning on the internet and other low budget areas for the same amount of time as everyone else, but chose not to. Not the idea of a good candidate.

[bishop]

ok, we aren't going to agree on this one then.. i see no substantive difference between them. there are the less substantitve items, like mccain's retarded song, but i don't give them as much weight.

back to the topic, though...

first off, since we're nearly at the end of bush's presidency, here's a brief look at his conservative legacy - one that was wholeheartedly supported by his conservative legislature, and later, the limp-wristed democrat jellyfish. when bush first took office in 2001, the debt ceiling was $5.6 trillion.. with this latest push to increase it, bush will have roughly doubled our debt during his stellar presidency. (he did quite a lot of damage from 2001-2004, yet the public decided to give him 4 more years to dig the hole even deeper.)

that said, the democrats haven't mentioned anything about fiscal conservatism during the course of their campaigns.. and as shown in the article, they too are contributing to increasing the debt ceiling. and so, the endless cycle continues for the foreseeable future. i definitely echo what scribbler said:

Congress could raise the debt limit to 500 Quadrillion dollars and the morons won't give a damn as long as they still have money in their pockets.

Don't worry. Be happy.

people getting caught up in the democrat vs. republican spat risk failing to see the forest for the trees... unfortunately, this degenerative and sheepish (imo) behavior seems virtually impossible to break.

[Grizz]

McCain doesn't have to do any more than continue Bush's ill-conceived Iraq war (which he has promised to do) to continue to drive the national debt through the roof. I also think he's smart enough to not take a weakened military off on another major adventure... like Iran.

[4Reaganomics]

weakened military

we could push a button and take care of Iran, wouldn't cost that much either

I'd slash the federal budget from 2.9 trillion to 900 billion tomorrow, and the debt would be paid off fairly quickly. The only federal departments that are truly necessary are military, defense, and homeland security related.

Government needs to get out of education and energy as soon as possible, let the market handle it.

[Elrathin]

Homeland security is a joke. It's wasteful and just added more bearocracy to the government.

As for dealing with Iran, what button would you push? Nukes? Gimme a break, no middle eastern country would stand for it. What then, you willing to go to war with Saudi Arabia, etc?

Are you wanting to start WWIII?

[4Reaganomics]

There would be no WWIII

America has the nuclear power to take out continents and the missle defense technology to defend against attacks from anywhere

who in their right mind would attack us under the flag of a country

no one, ever

The day they do is the day they dig their own grave

[bishop]

Homeland security is a joke. It's wasteful and just added more bearocracy to the government.

i'll second that one.. the answer to the intelligence f-ups surrounding 9/11 was not to build another bloated and inefficient agency - one that has yet to actually prove its purpose or value. and at the same time, we somehow were mislead into iraq thanks to bogus "intelligence"..

billions of dollars later, doesn't seem like much has improved.

[Elrathin]

There have been tyrants throughout history that thought they were invincible too, they were all proven wrong.

We are not invincible and we are not under some cloak from God.

[4Reaganomics]

our domestic homeland has been safe after islam had declared war on it

I'll take that result, regardless of what the means were

The safety of American citizens is paramount. If that is sufficiently being accomplished, I am happy.

[Elrathin]

our domestic homeland has been safe after islam had declared war on it

The goal of Radicals is not to kill U.S. people on U.S. soil, but to kill Americans PERIOD. They are doing just that. 9/11 took a few years planning and they killed 3000. In less time than that they have killed almost 4000 U.S. soldiers and many others. Seems like they are doing a better job at killing than 9/11.

Why should they waste their time and effort killing Americans on U.S. soil, when they can kill much more Americans where they are at now?

[4Reaganomics]

There have been tyrants throughout history that thought they were invincible too, they were all proven wrong.

We are not invincible and we are not under some cloak from God.


That was before one country developed nuclear technology that could end everyone else's exsistence in an hour

If America is vulnerable to anything, it is socialism and being the France of the 21st Century. This will almost certainly be the case is the hard left gets their way

"God Damn America" - Obama's pastor

I don't think our country will do to well with someone who listens to that type of spiritual leadership[hr]

our domestic homeland has been safe after islam had declared war on it

The goal of Radicals is not to kill U.S. people on U.S. soil, but to kill Americans PERIOD. They are doing just that. 9/11 took a few years planning and they killed 3000. In less time than that they have killed almost 4000 U.S. soldiers and many others. Seems like they are doing a better job at killing than 9/11.

Why should they waste their time and effort killing Americans on U.S. soil, when they can kill much more Americans where they are at now?


They aren't killing our 8 yr. olds. They aren't killing our female accountants.

They are killing people who VOLUNTARILY chose to defend this country, and if it is so bad for them El, why do they want to remain over there and give it to the terrorists?

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is going down and will have bases set up to protect our world for the terror regime of Iran. Obama's terror connections and surrender plans will never be put in place. He's not electable, period

[Elrathin]

That was before one country developed nuclear technology that could end everyone else's exsistence in an hour

If America is vulnerable to anything, it is socialism and being the France of the 21st Century. This will almost certainly be the case is the hard left gets their way

"God Damn America" - Obama's pastor

I don't think our country will do to well with someone who listens to that type of spiritual leadership


Funny Obama has denounced everything his pastor has said. More lies and spin from the right.

As for being invincible, you keep thinking that. That line of thought will be the doom of America. All the world has to do is ban together against the U.S. and choke off the oil. We can't nuke everyone and we won't.

BTW if any person voted for the Nuking of Iran when they haven't declared war on us, I would see to it that they were brought up on war crimes and agree if found guilty agree to their execution.[hr]
They aren't killing our 8 yr. olds. They aren't killing our female accountants.

They are killing people who VOLUNTARILY chose to defend this country, and if it is so bad for them El, why do they want to remain over there and give it to the terrorists?

They are killing Americans and that is their goal. The fact they are soldiers are even better to AL-Q because then they think they are attacking a true enemy.


Al-Qaeda in Iraq is going down and will have bases set up to protect our world for the terror regime of Iran. Obama's terror connections and surrender plans will never be put in place. He's not electable, period


Bush and McCain have more ties to terrorists than Obama.

[4Reaganomics]

Which terrorists has Bush said he is "friendly" with EL?

[Scribbler1]

our domestic homeland has been safe after islam had declared war on it

I'll take that result, regardless of what the means wereThat's just it. You don't KNOW what the means were. Politicians will surely take credit for us not being attacked on our own soil, but the truth could just as easily be they don't FEEL like pulling another 9/11 at this time. Maybe they are still planning something, or as Elrathin pointed out, they find it safer for them to kill us abroad.

As I said in another thread, we could level Iran and it will only kill a whole lot of innocent civilians. The terrorists who want to attack us will just move to another country and plan their attacks then. It's a fantasy to think Iran, or any other country will openly declare war on us.The safety of American citizens is paramount. If that is sufficiently being accomplished, I am happy.At the MOMENT, and only at the moment, our safety is secure. It is not being "accomplished" because that implies someone is KEEPING us safe. Unfortunately for the DHS and the Administration, we are still too free to allow anyone to "keep" us safe.
Plus, all a dark-skinned terrorist who knows a smattering of Spanish needs to to is just jog across our Southern border and he's right in our midst.

[Elrathin]

Which terrorists has Bush said he is "friendly" with EL?


The Bin Ladin Family of course.

[4Reaganomics]

point made

that border needs to be closed now[hr]

Which terrorists has Bush said he is "friendly" with EL?


The Bin Ladin Family of course.


I never heard him say he was friendly with Osama Bin Laden or anyone who has KNOWINGLY attacked America

It is proven and William Ayers has admitted to terrorizing America through attacks, and yet Obama is friendly with him and their kids go to school together

really nice

[Elrathin]

I don't recall Obama making sure the Bin Ladin Family got out of America after 9/11.

[4Reaganomics]

were they personal friends El? Did their kids go to the same school? Did the people he helped aid specifically say that they had bombed america and that they would bomb America again?

[Elrathin]

For the administration to help Bin Ladin's family get out of the U.S., when airspace had been restricted, I'd say yes, they were more than just "associates".

[lily]

do you realistically see mccain, clinton or obama doing ANYTHING to correct that situation?


Bishop, be realistic.......if you ask the average man on the street if he cares if the debt limit is increased or for that matter, that this country is so far in debt, he would look at you like you were crazy. He'd ask you what are you going to going to do about the price of oil, my job, the rising price of groceries, the factory closing, health care, when are we going to get out of Iraq.......and no mention of Afghanistan, because most people don't even know we are still figting there,......they think we won that war already. It's a campaign season and other than those who keep informed.......who really cares about the debt and how it's growing.[hr]


That was before one country developed nuclear technology that could end everyone else's exsistence in an hour

Yep and no other country has it and no other country would retaliate with it......come on.

If America is vulnerable to anything, it is socialism and being the France of the 21st Century. This will almost certainly be the case is the hard left gets their way

Well, I'm sorry to say, but we've done it the Republican way for 8 years, if it was working so good, they would be voting in another Republican.


They aren't killing our 8 yr. olds. They aren't killing our female accountants.

They are killing people who VOLUNTARILY chose to defend this country, and if it is so bad for them El, why do they want to remain over there and give it to the terrorists?

You know....let's step back and see just what was attacked on 911. The World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a plane that was directed at the White House, which thankfully landed in Penn.

The 3,000 people that were killed was shock effect. Their aim was to shut down the money (World Trade Center), hit the military (the Pentagon) and to send a message to the White House, (plane diverted to Penn).

Well, the shock effect worked, since everyone is so afraid it will happen again, and the money thing worked......just look at this thread.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is going down and will have bases set up to protect our world for the terror regime of Iran. Obama's terror connections and surrender plans will never be put in place. He's not electable, period

Sorry, you're wrong. I posted an article just yesterday that said although they may be weak, they are still strong and going nowhere. Next month will be interesting.......isn't Petraues' report due?

[Grizz]

Through Bush-Colored Glasses

President Bush admitted on Friday that times are tough. So much for the straight talk.

Mr. Bush went on to paint a false picture of the economy. He dismissed virtually every proposal Congress is working on to alleviate the mortgage crisis, sticking to his administration’s inadequate ideas. And despite the rush of serious problems — frozen credit markets, millions of impending mortgage defaults, solvency issues at banks, a plunging dollar — he said that a major source of uncertainty today is whether his tax cuts, scheduled to expire in 2010, would be extended.

This was too far afield of reality to be dismissed as simple cheerleading. It points to the pressing need for a coherent plan to steer through what some economists are now predicting could be a severe downturn. Mr. Bush’s denial of the economic truth underscores the need for Congress to push forward with solutions to the mortgage crisis — especially bankruptcy reform to help defaulting homeowners. Lawmakers also must prepare to execute, in case it is needed, a government rescue of people whose homes are now worth less than they borrowed to buy them.

Mr. Bush said he was optimistic because the economy’s “foundation is solid” as measured by employment, wages, productivity, exports and the federal deficit. He was wrong on every count. On some, he has been wrong for quite a while.

Mr. Bush boasted about 52 consecutive months of job growth during his presidency. What matters is the magnitude of growth, not ticks on a calendar. The economic expansion under Mr. Bush — which it is safe to assume is now over — produced job growth of 4.2 percent. That is the worst performance over a business cycle since the government started keeping track in 1945.

Mr. Bush also talked approvingly of the recent unemployment rate of 4.8 percent. A low rate is good news when it indicates a robust job market. The unemployment rate ticked down last month because hundreds of thousands of people dropped out of the work force altogether. Worse, long-term unemployment, of six months or more, hit 17.5 percent. We’d expect that in the depths of a recession. It is unprecedented at the onset of one.

Mr. Bush was wrong to say wages are rising. On Friday morning, the day he spoke, the government reported that wages failed to outpace inflation in February, for the fifth straight month. Productivity growth has also weakened markedly in the past two years, a harbinger of a lower overall standard of living for Americans.

Exports have surged of late, but largely on the back of a falling dollar. The weaker dollar makes American exports cheaper, but it also pushes up oil prices. Potentially far more serious, a weakening dollar also reduces the Federal Reserve’s flexibility to steady the economy.

Finally, Mr. Bush’s focus on the size of the federal budget deficit ignores that annual government borrowing comes on top of existing debt. Publicly held federal debt will be up by a stunning 76 percent by the end of his presidency. Paying back the money means less to spend on everything else for a very long time.

The fiscal stimulus passed by Congress, and touted by Mr. Bush on Friday, could juice growth for a quarter or two later this year. But the economy’s fundamental weaknesses indicate that Americans are ill-prepared for hard times. That makes the need for clear-eyed policies all the more urgent. We need them from the president, Congress and the contenders for the White House.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/opinion/16sun1.html?ref=opinion)

[bishop]

Bishop, be realistic.......if you ask the average man on the street if he cares if the debt limit is increased or for that matter, that this country is so far in debt, he would look at you like you were crazy. He'd ask you what are you going to going to do about the price of oil, my job, the rising price of groceries, the factory closing, health care, when are we going to get out of Iraq.......and no mention of Afghanistan, because most people don't even know we are still figting there,......they think we won that war already. It's a campaign season and other than those who keep informed.......who really cares about the debt and how it's growing.

that's not how i see it at all. people do speak out about the debt being a bad thing all the time, they just never give the topic the focus it deserves. kerry, for instance, did make an issue out of it in 2004. of course, kerry's such a piss poor communicator that nobody understood what he was talking about. paul speaks about it all the time, but the pro-establishment crowd out there has summarily labeled him and his supporters as being wackos out on the fringe.

what needs to be focused on are the consequences, realized and potential, of having so much debt. it isn't extremely difficult to spell those out either. people understand the alternative energy problem so to avoid future environmental disasters vis a vis global warming - they can also be educated to seek balanced budgets in order to avoid future economic disasters.. but that said, while people understand that our addiction to oil's a bad thing, nobody's really putting in any effort to fix it. perhaps the debt/deficit is no different.

let's just wait until it's all too late. sounds like a great plan. :thumbsup:

[Scribbler1]

That's just what we need, and what I don't see from anyone in Washington.
We need someone people will listen to, keep REPEATING what the consequences will be until the idiot sheep recognize the problem. Repetition seems to be all these fools respond to.

And Bush is definitely NOT the guy to do it. Somebody with a little credibility would do nicely. Maybe we could get Paris Hilton to talk often about the state of the economy. THEN the sheep will listen!

[Grizz]

Bishop:

what needs to be focused on are the consequences, realized and potential, of having so much debt. it isn't extremely difficult to spell those out either. people understand the alternative energy problem so to avoid future environmental disasters vis a vis global warming - they can also be educated to seek balanced budgets in order to avoid future economic disasters.. but that said, while people understand that our addiction to oil's a bad thing, nobody's really putting in any effort to fix it. perhaps the debt/deficit is no different.

The sad thing is, Bishop, that folks even today cannot connect much higher gas prices to the increase in the national debt and what the fed is doing. Come to think of it, most people can't think beyond their next paycheck. It would have been one thing if Bush had used all that borrowing on re-building our infrastructure, but it's quite another when it's pi**sed away through the sands of Iraq. Worse yet, the bills from that little adventure will be coming for at least another half century and they're going to get steeper even when we pull out.