Democrats To Raise Debt Ceiling Again
by Big Dog on Jan 21, 2010 at 00:13 Political
Senate Democrats proposed increasing the debt ceiling another 1.9 TRILLION dollars so the government can pay its bills. This is necessary because of the out of control spending taking place in DC. The Democrats are spending us into oblivion and they keep raising the limit so they can keep spending more. Failure to raise the limit will place America in default.
This is the last thing Democrats need after taking a thumping in Massachusetts. This will give Republicans more ammunition for the upcoming elections and this will certainly be fair. The Democrats were certainly not bashful about commenting when the debt ceiling was raised by Republicans:
- Senate Democrats are expected to use the upcoming debate on raising the limit to highlight the Bush administration’s record on deficits. AP (via Puppet Gov) 9-2007
- “Any objective analysis of our country’s fiscal history would have to conclude this administration and this rubberstamping Republican Congress are the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country. In fact, no other president or Congress even comes close.” Harry Reid commenting on the vote to raise debt ceiling March 2006
This does not include the various liberal bloggers who foamed at the mouth like rabid dogs each time the ceiling was raised. These people told us how Bush ruined the economy and spouted that oft told lie about Clinton having a surplus. They all went nuts talking about tax cuts and the war.
I hear none of them talking about Obama and his Democrats raising the ceiling and then spending more and more each time they do. It is like they raise the limit on the national credit card and then go on a spending spree. We have a spending problem, we spend too much.
This exercise is a ritual that plays itself out on occasion and both parties participate and who leads depends on who is in power at the time. This time it is the Democrats and last time it was the Republicans. The minority party usually takes shots at the majority for its fiscal irresponsibility and then once the debt limit is raised they all line up at the trough to spend, spend, spend.
We have this problem because Congress spends too much money. When Republicans were in charge they spent too much and now that Democrats are in charge they spend WAY too much. None of them have any fiscal constraint and they all seem to think money grows on trees.
In the next election we need to remove all incumbents and put some fresh people in there to get the job done. Vote for the challenger in the primaries and put new people in to run against each other rather than allowing incumbents to run unopposed. I will definitely vote for the person on the ticket who is not the incumbent in my state’s Senate race and in my District. This needs to be an anti incumbent year where we get rid of them all.
But until then it will be fun to beat up the Democrats like they did to Republicans. Nothing personal, it just happens to be their turn.
Related:
US Debt
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: debt ceiling, Democrats, Harry Reid, majority, Republicans
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, ‘There they go again-‘
To directly quote Dick Cheney:
“Reagan taught us deficits don’t matter.”
D.
—————
“The only presidents to add to the debt since WWII have been Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush:
“All other presidents since WWII have contributed nothing to the Gross Federal Debt, which now stands at 63.6% of GDP.”
http://zfacts.com/p/480.html
Well, Obama and Reagan are still following closely in approval rating so it only makes sense…
Yes, but Reagan actually DID something in his first year- O’bamma just makes out with his teleprompter.
The debt is the amount of money the US owes whether to itself or to public companies. Comparing the debt to the GDP gives false impressions that debt went down because the percentage of debt to GDP will change if the GDP goes up or down but the amount of money we owe remains the same. The total dollar figures of debt, which is available at the treasury web site shows that the debt for each president from 1933 (the period that covers the first WWII president) to GWB (the last president to complete his terms in office) is higher at the end of the term than at the beginning.
In other words, every president has added to the debt since that time. The same is true for most presidents up to that time (there were a few that had drops in any one year along the way) and Andrew Jackson had a lower debt when he left than when he entered.
These numbers represent the actual debt we owe in dollars which is a more accurate picture than comparing them to the GDP which is a variable number and could show that a president did not add to the debt even though the total owed went up just by having a high GDP. It is misleading and a false way to compare.
Bigd: “These numbers represent the actual debt we owe in dollars”>>
DAR
But the actual value of those actual dollars is a moving target. You forget inflation. One could say, quite rightfully that it’s a misleading and false comparison to not account for the true/actual value of the dollar.
True, inflation is a factor but we are paying them back in today’s dollars one for one regardless of what they equaled in the past. The value of the dollar changes frequently and we could owe more or less (usually more) compared to the past but the fact is we pay in today’s dollars so the numbers are equaled for each person.
The reality is we owe an actual number and that is how we determine what it is we owe and whether debt increased. It just means we owe more now than if we had paid when we spent it.
Bigd: “we are paying them back in today’s dollars one for one regardless of what they equaled in the past.”>>
DAR
Right, we pay an increasing debt with increasingly deflated dollars. That’s to our advantage (in some sense, not in others). That’s why a higher number doesn’t necessarily mean an actually higher debt. If the raw debt number increases slower than inflation, the *actual* debt has decreased (even though the number went up).
This is important to consider when you say:
“the debt for each president… is higher at the end of the term than at the beginning.”
What matters is if it is in constant dollars (inflation adjusted). Considering it as a percent of GDP is one comparison that gets around this.
D.
Then the numbers should be figured in inflated dollars. Right now we are flooding the market with dollars and we will have bad inflation this year. Once the dollars are worth less money and we inflate our way out of what we owe the claim will be made that the debt was lowered but inflating out is not lowering.
In any event, dollars have been inflating since the country went off the gold standard so I doubt that the inflation rate dropped (at least enough) in any one time to make a difference in the 4 or 8 years each man has held the job.
The percentage of GDP is not good. If by some miracle the GDP goes way up it will look like Obama spent little when he spent trillions of dollars.
When we adjust that for inflation in the future it will be huge.
Best way to go is to pay as you go.