View Full Version : Government almost out of credit
TexasDevilDog
03-06-2006, 07:10 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030600635_pf.html
Treasury Dept. Moves to Avoid Debt Limit
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
The Associated Press
Monday, March 6, 2006; 1:18 PM
WASHINGTON -- Treasury Secretary John Snow notified Congress on Monday that the administration has now taken "all prudent and legal actions," including tapping certain government retirement funds, to keep from hitting the $8.2 trillion national debt limit.
:rolleyes:
TexasDevilDog
03-06-2006, 07:25 PM
***yawn***
I think it is a non-yawner. I am tired of republicans spending so much money that the debt is going up between $400-500 billion a year. Borrowing that much money means they are unable to make the hard choices to balance the budget.
White trash wagon
03-06-2006, 07:45 PM
I think it is a non-yawner. I am tired of republicans spending so much money that the debt is going up between $400-500 billion a year. Borrowing that much money means they are unable to make the hard choices to balance the budget.
I agree 100%
I don't care which party carries the next election, as long as the new president does something about deficit spending.
Scott
WhtEdge
03-06-2006, 07:56 PM
From the article:
"In a letter to Congress, Snow urged lawmakers to pass a new debt ceiling immediately to avoid the nation's first-ever default on its obligations."
Well that makes sense. Lets just raise the debt ceiling so we can keep spending like we have been. They really need to get this crap under control. Who says some of the other countries the US owes money too won't decide to collect soon also.
kangol
03-06-2006, 08:14 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030600635_pf.html
WASHINGTON -- Treasury Secretary John Snow notified Congress on Monday that the administration has now taken "all prudent and legal actions," including tapping certain government retirement funds, to keep from hitting the $8.2 trillion national debt limit.
:rolleyes:
Oh noes! too late:
03/03/2006 8,270,568,938,276.67
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Side note - while this chart is a little old you get the idea, look at the trend:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
I think it is a non-yawner. I am tired of republicans spending so much money that the debt is going up between $400-500 billion a year. Borrowing that much money means they are unable to make the hard choices to balance the budget.
Tired of Republicans spending so much!?!?! Are you serious? Democrats would've spent just as much money on THE WAR as Republicans are. It's not Republican's fault the debt is up, it's because of the war, which any Democrat would have done EXACTLY what Bush did in light of 9-11, which is go to war. You can't fault a party for the national debt. To do so is really reaching far out there. I would never accuse a Liberal of increasing the national debt.
And the reason I said "***yawn***" is because I knew exactly what was coming with this post. The "yawn" signified me being tired of the back and forth bull shit. You can critisize all you want, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
White trash wagon
03-06-2006, 08:23 PM
Tired of Republicans spending so much!?!?! Are you serious? Democrats would've spent just as much money on THE WAR as Republicans are. It's not Republican's fault the debt is up, it's because of the war, which any Democrat would have done EXACTLY what Bush did in light of 9-11, which is go to war. You can't fault a party for the national debt. To do so is really reaching far out there. I would never accuse a Liberal of increasing the national debt.
And the reason I said "***yawn***" is because I knew exactly what was coming with this post. The "yawn" signified me being tired of the back and forth bull shit. You can critisize all you want, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
If we had gone to war under a Democrat, the expense would have been virtually the same. I think what he's talking about is cutting taxes during a war, never a good idea. Most Democrats and a few Republicans voted against these wartime tax cuts.
Scott
If we had gone to war under a Democrat, the expense would have been virtually the same. I think what he's talking about is cutting taxes during a war, never a good idea. Most Democrats and a few Republicans voted against these wartime tax cuts.
Scott
He said verbatim "I'm tired of Republicans spending so much". That tells me he is blaming the rising debt on a political party, which is severely inaccurate. And Scott, you agreeing with me (which is a rare occurance), validates my statement.
As far as the tax cuts. I agree with you, somewhat. Had the tax cuts not gone through at that time, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. We would've gotten there next year though, maybe 2008 at the latest. The tax cuts weren't significant enough to have any prolonged effect on our national debt.
U.S. military spending averages $1.5 billion PER DAY. It's hard not to increase the debt with a bill like that.
BigJirish08
03-07-2006, 02:16 AM
perhaps if we had a democrat in office we would have just stuck with searching for the taliban in afganistan instead of starting another war against another country that was totally uninvolved in 9-11... that probably would have not cost as much money dont you think?
perhaps if we had a democrat in office we would have just stuck with searching for the taliban in afganistan instead of starting another war against another country that was totally uninvolved in 9-11... that probably would have not cost as much money dont you think?
Perhaps if the Democrat that was in office for most of the 1990s had taken care of business when business needed to be taken care of we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now. Don't you think?
TexasDevilDog
03-07-2006, 07:59 AM
Tired of Republicans spending so much!?!?! Are you serious? Democrats would've spent just as much money on THE WAR as Republicans are. It's not Republican's fault the debt is up, it's because of the war,
Who controlls the house, the senate and the presidency? The party of borrow and spend. I am blaming them because they have the control. Where is the fiscal responsibility? If they war need more money, then raise taxes or cut spending on other things. In 1967 when President Johnson said that we can have both "guns and butter" he was wrong, just as it is wrong today.
TexasDevilDog
03-07-2006, 08:10 AM
U.S. military spending averages $1.5 billion PER DAY. It's hard not to increase the debt with a bill like that.
If they would raise taxes or cut spending, they would not have to borrow money. The politically easy way out is to borrow the money and make future generation pay it back, instead of making the tough choices.
I vote most republican. I am a conservative, but unlike most conservatives here, I am going to be consistant with what I believe. I don't bend my values and give my party of choice a pass because they are in power.
White trash wagon
03-07-2006, 08:13 AM
Perhaps if the Democrat that was in office for most of the 1990s had taken care of business when business needed to be taken care of we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now. Don't you think?
Perhaps if the Republican who was in office in 1991 had finished what he started, we would not be in this predicament now. George Sr pulled out of Iraq, because he knew there was no easy way to occupy Iraq, or as he put it "there was no exit strategy". But it guaranteed a Gulf War II.
Scott
black01gt
03-07-2006, 01:29 PM
They really need to get this crap under control. Who says some of the other countries the US owes money too won't decide to collect soon also.
Like the UAE.
black01gt
03-07-2006, 01:38 PM
Tired of Republicans spending so much!?!?! Are you serious? Democrats would've spent just as much money on THE WAR as Republicans are. It's not Republican's fault the debt is up, it's because of the war,
And the reason I said "***yawn***" is because I knew exactly what was coming with this post. The "yawn" signified me being tired of the back and forth bull shit. You can critisize all you want, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
Yet you were the first one to start the "back and forth bullshit"....***yawn***.
"well they did it first...if we hadn't done it, they would have..."
You are correct about the perpetual them/us bullshit. We REALLY need to get it fugured out!
Who controlls the house, the senate and the presidency? The party of borrow and spend. I am blaming them because they have the control. Where is the fiscal responsibility? If they war need more money, then raise taxes or cut spending on other things. In 1967 when President Johnson said that we can have both "guns and butter" he was wrong, just as it is wrong today.
I understand that TDD. But what you fail to see is that regardless of who controls the majority right now, the spending would be the same. The tax cuts are, at this point, irrelevant. There is no pulling out of Iraq, or the Middle East, in the forseeable future. The taxes would've just delayed this problem another year or so. I'm not blaming anyone for the spending. I'm not saying it's Clinton's fault, I'm not agreeing that it's Bush Sr's fault. I will agree that the spending has been a little bit on the not-so-frugal side. And touching on the guns and butter, I prefer Blue Bonnet. :D
Perhaps if the Republican who was in office in 1991 had finished what he started, we would not be in this predicament now. George Sr pulled out of Iraq, because he knew there was no easy way to occupy Iraq, or as he put it "there was no exit strategy". But it guaranteed a Gulf War II.
Scott
Agreed, again. I hate saying that when I'm writing in response to you Scott, but sometimes you've got some decent responses. Granted, when the Gulf War was going on I was in 1st grade. I didn't care then. All I was concerned with was my Super Nintendo and Ninja Turtles...maybe Transformers or Captain Planet every now and then. I do know enough to know that what you say is not innacurate. But Bush Sr cannot see the future, and neither could Clinton. There are things Bush Sr could've done better, and a lot of things, IMO, that Clinton could've done better.
Yet you were the first one to start the "back and forth bullshit"....***yawn***.
"well they did it first...if we hadn't done it, they would have..."
You are correct about the perpetual them/us bullshit. We REALLY need to get it fugured out!
The yawn was not starting anything. The yawn was in anticipation of the "perpetual them/us bullshit" as you call it. So far, in this thread, there hasn't been any back and forth bullshit...then you chime in and start to instigate. So far, this has been the only thread in this forum that I've read where we're simply discussing and not bitching.
Where's Hookem and Pro Trash at BTW?
TexasDevilDog
03-07-2006, 03:47 PM
I understand that TDD. But what you fail to see is that regardless of who controls the majority right now, the spending would be the same.
The spending might have been the same, but republicans don't have the political will to balance the budget, when I remember for years saying they would if elected to the majority.
Fine the war is going on, well pay for it then, with a tax increase or cut spending else where.
The spending might have been the same, but republicans don't have the political will to balance the budget, when I remember for years saying they would if elected to the majority.
Fine the war is going on, well pay for it then, with a tax increase or cut spending else where.
I agree. I would not mind paying the taxes if it means good would come from it. I agree that the government needs to tighten their spending habits. I'll also go as far as to say Republicans are just as bad as Democrats in terms of saying one thing and acting opposite or not equal to what they say. But it is not my job to pass judgement or critisize. My job is to fix planes. I'm a pro at that, so that's what I'll stick to. :D
black01gt
03-07-2006, 06:57 PM
The yawn was not starting anything. The yawn was in anticipation of the "perpetual them/us bullshit" as you call it. So far, in this thread, there hasn't been any back and forth bullshit...then you chime in and start to instigate.
What's this then? Smart money is to focus on who is cleaning out the bank today.
Are you serious? Democrats would've spent just as much money on THE WAR as Republicans are. It's not Republican's fault the debt is up, it's because of the war, which any Democrat would have done EXACTLY what Bush did in light of 9-11, which is go to war. You can't fault a party for the national debt. To do so is really reaching far out there. I would never accuse a Liberal of increasing the national debt.
Perhaps if the Democrat that was in office for most of the 1990s had taken care of business when business needed to be taken care of we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in now. Don't you think?
What's this then?
It's a rebuttal to TDD's comment. Do you want to start shit? Is that your goal in life? To piss people off? Because you sure as hell piss me off. I think you're a shit heel. You're uneducated and ignorant. Feel free to respond.
black01gt
03-07-2006, 08:51 PM
It's a rebuttal to TDD's comment. Do you want to start shit? Is that your goal in life? To piss people off? Because you sure as hell piss me off. I think you're a shit heel. You're uneducated and ignorant. Feel free to respond.
Well now that just hurts...
A "shit heel"?
Look...the democrats are not in control. So it does no good to banter about what the dems did, or would have done, or might do. It may be great fun to bash dems and libs, but it has no value what so ever other than to keep an unhealthy and counterproductive wedge in place.
The REAL enemy's of this country don't give a shit if we're democrat, republican, conservative, or liberal. Except of course the ones in DC! :o
Well now that just hurts...
A "shit heel"?
Look...the democrats are not in control. So it does no good to banter about what the dems did, or would have done, or might do. It may be great fun to bash dems and libs, but it has no value what so ever other than to keep an unhealthy and counterproductive wedge in place.
The REAL enemy's of this country don't give a shit if we're democrat, republican, conservative, or liberal. Except of course the ones in DC! :o
I didn't bash Democrats or Liberals in this thread. Go talk to a wall, you might have more success.
HookEm
03-09-2006, 03:23 AM
The Democratic controlled House wouldnt allow that....nor would the UN. Short memory? Remember, Al "The Don" Gorleone sold his vote, but would only do so to support removal of Iraq forces, night overthrowing of the govt.
Perhaps if the Republican who was in office in 1991 had finished what he started, we would not be in this predicament now. George Sr pulled out of Iraq, because he knew there was no easy way to occupy Iraq, or as he put it "there was no exit strategy". But it guaranteed a Gulf War II.
Scott
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.