http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/politics...5&partner=MYWAY

 

The bill, if approved by the House in a vote expected on Thursday, would authorize the third big increase in the federal borrowing since President Bush took office in 2001. Federal debt has ballooned by $1.4 trillion over the past four years, to $7.4 trillion, and the new ceiling would allow borrowing to reach $8.2 trillion.

 

With no end in sight to the huge annual budget deficits, which hit a record of $412 billion this year, lawmakers predicted on Wednesday that the new ceiling would probably have to be raised again in about a year.

 

Dems opposed the measure.

This will give Tonyi the chance to prove he's a faithful Libertarian.

photocopying costs money...just cross out 2004 and put in 2005 in every budget document..you actually save money.

 

:hat

However, it shouldn't be too hard to contain deficit growth if people really wanted to - take the previous year's budget and run it through a Xerox machine. Nothing new, period - unless you can fund it within your agenciies existing budget by implementing cost savings, or other things that are expiring.

 

 

Sure, and just tell the entire economy to hold prices steady while you're at it. Darn that inflation thing. :whistle

Well, somehow 52 percent of the country wanted this, so let them have their massive debt. Just don't blame me.

Right because obviously if kerry had won the 2005 budget would have made the deficit disappear by 2006. This deficit is here to stay, and there wont be a balance for at least another 10 years unless they start cutting back on spending both social and military

Right because obviously if kerry had won the 2005 budget would have made the deficit disappear by 2006. This deficit is here to stay, and there wont be a balance for at least another 10 years unless they start cutting back on spending both social and military

617496[/snapback]

 

You are absolutely right Legacy. This deficit is here to stay, so why the hell not make it bigger right????? :mad :

Right because obviously if kerry had won the 2005 budget would have made the deficit disappear by 2006. This deficit is here to stay, and there wont be a balance for at least another 10 years unless they start cutting back on spending both social and military

617496[/snapback]

 

You are absolutely right Legacy. This deficit is here to stay, so why the hell not make it bigger right????? :mad :

617507[/snapback]

 

The problem is kerry would not have made it smaller either. Bushs problem is he wants tax cuts without cutting spending in other areas. Kerrys problem was to get rid of tax cuts, maintain military spending, but add spending in other areas. You dont need tax money if theres less stuff to pay for so they need to cut spending on social and military programs (b/c of our current war situation the former is easier to do than the latter) so that a tax cut will simply be a refund of unneeded funds

Right because obviously if kerry had won the 2005 budget would have made the deficit disappear by 2006. This deficit is here to stay, and there wont be a balance for at least another 10 years unless they start cutting back on spending both social and military

617496[/snapback]

 

You are absolutely right Legacy. This deficit is here to stay, so why the hell not make it bigger right????? :mad :

617507[/snapback]

 

The problem is kerry would not have made it smaller either. Bushs problem is he wants tax cuts without cutting spending in other areas. Kerrys problem was to get rid of tax cuts, maintain military spending, but add spending in other areas. You dont need tax money if theres less stuff to pay for so they need to cut spending on social and military programs (b/c of our current war situation the former is easier to do than the latter) so that a tax cut will simply be a refund of unneeded funds

617514[/snapback]

 

I think Kerry said we shouldnt allow for another increase the max defecit spending. Even if he wanted to, the ceiling should stay the same and hence Kerry either couldnt add new programs or he would have been driven to cut others or raise high end taxes. But under this new plan none of that will happen. Theyve essentially said no raise tax, no spending limit. Its like giving a college kid a raise in his credit limit and lowering his monthly payment knowing full well that money will go straight to friday night booze and pizza. Under Kerry that credit limit doesnt get raised and the monthly payment goes up to reduce the debt.

Right because obviously if kerry had won the 2005 budget would have made the deficit disappear by 2006. This deficit is here to stay, and there wont be a balance for at least another 10 years unless they start cutting back on spending both social and military

617496[/snapback]

 

You are absolutely right Legacy. This deficit is here to stay, so why the hell not make it bigger right????? :mad :

617507[/snapback]

 

The problem is kerry would not have made it smaller either. Bushs problem is he wants tax cuts without cutting spending in other areas. Kerrys problem was to get rid of tax cuts, maintain military spending, but add spending in other areas. You dont need tax money if theres less stuff to pay for so they need to cut spending on social and military programs (b/c of our current war situation the former is easier to do than the latter) so that a tax cut will simply be a refund of unneeded funds

617514[/snapback]

 

I think Kerry said we shouldnt allow for another increase the max defecit spending. Even if he wanted to, the ceiling should stay the same and hence Kerry either couldnt add new programs or he would have been driven to cut others or raise high end taxes. But under this new plan none of that will happen. Theyve essentially said no raise tax, no spending limit. Its like giving a college kid a raise in his credit limit and lowering his monthly payment knowing full well that money will go straight to friday night booze and pizza. Under Kerry that credit limit doesnt get raised and the monthly payment goes up to reduce the debt.

617540[/snapback]

 

Exactly! Kerry even said he would eliminate some of his pet programs if it was necessary to reduce the deficit. Instead, we are stuck with a man who spends like a drunken sailor and who has no plan to stop spending. Deficit spending is 'acceptable' to a point, right now is gone beyond ridiculous.

Right because obviously if kerry had won the 2005 budget would have made the deficit disappear by 2006. This deficit is here to stay, and there wont be a balance for at least another 10 years unless they start cutting back on spending both social and military

617496[/snapback]

 

You are absolutely right Legacy. This deficit is here to stay, so why the hell not make it bigger right????? :mad :

617507[/snapback]

 

The problem is kerry would not have made it smaller either. Bushs problem is he wants tax cuts without cutting spending in other areas. Kerrys problem was to get rid of tax cuts, maintain military spending, but add spending in other areas. You dont need tax money if theres less stuff to pay for so they need to cut spending on social and military programs (b/c of our current war situation the former is easier to do than the latter) so that a tax cut will simply be a refund of unneeded funds

617514[/snapback]

 

I think Kerry said we shouldnt allow for another increase the max defecit spending. Even if he wanted to, the ceiling should stay the same and hence Kerry either couldnt add new programs or he would have been driven to cut others or raise high end taxes. But under this new plan none of that will happen. Theyve essentially said no raise tax, no spending limit. Its like giving a college kid a raise in his credit limit and lowering his monthly payment knowing full well that money will go straight to friday night booze and pizza. Under Kerry that credit limit doesnt get raised and the monthly payment goes up to reduce the debt.

617540[/snapback]

 

Exactly! Kerry even said he would eliminate some of his pet programs if it was necessary to reduce the deficit. Instead, we are stuck with a man who spends like a drunken sailor and who has no plan to stop spending. Deficit spending is 'acceptable' to a point, right now is gone beyond ridiculous.

617593[/snapback]

 

Which pet programs was he going to cut, how much do we currently spend on them, and where can i find this info?

Which pet programs was he going to cut, how much do we currently spend on them, and where can i find this info?

617594[/snapback]

 

Early childhood was one of them.

Add to that the tax cuts roll back he was planning to do for those earning $200,000 a year. In other words, he wanted to stop the bleeding by covering the wound.

Add to that the tax cuts roll back he was planning to do for those earning $200,000 a year. In other words, he wanted to stop the bleeding by covering the wound.

617602[/snapback]

what does tax cut roll back mean? He was going to raise taxes to for these hard working people by what level?

Add to that the tax cuts roll back he was planning to do for those earning $200,000 a year. In other words, he wanted to stop the bleeding by covering the wound.

617602[/snapback]

what does tax cut roll back mean? He was going to raise taxes to for these hard working people by what level?

617614[/snapback]

 

Legacy, we are already past the time to argue this. You got what you wanted.

 

His plan was to ROLL BACK the tax cuts Mr. Bush gave these people at the beginning of his term. In other words, put them back to where they were before this madness started. If you consider that a raise, Ok, it is a raise. I call it common sense.

How much would the Kerry rollback generate in tax revenue?

617842[/snapback]

I don't think that really matters anymore, since we're now stuck with another four years of Bush spending our future into the ground.

I love how this is all about John Kerry. Neither legacy nor tonyi has been able to defend this administration. Nor have the true believers. But these are the same people who will talk about democrats spending their money. Id like to hear someone actually defend Bush without mentioning Kerry and the democrats.

 

Neither have answered the question I posed. Is it better to have a man who has caps on spending and has increased accounts receivable to reduce the debt we have or is it better to have a guy with no caps and less accounts receivable so the debt is promised to get bigger?

 

How can you expect someone to cut back spending when you increase his spending limit? How can you expect a spender to not spend his credit when you increase his credit limit? Some of you are like the parent that defends their spoiled spending college kid by saying "I wouldnt trust the other kid!"

 

 

Here is the reality lina. Some people who pretend to care about deficits really dont give a damn about deficits or national debt. As long as you keep feeding tax cuts, theyll be nice and pleased. Meanwhile the United States of America is drowning in debt and will continue to borrow from foriegn investors. Its like a guy who buys his hot gf everything and has to keep spending to appease her but borrows from the loan shark to do it. She doesnt care, as long as she gets her bling bling.

 

 

Ill pose this challenge to people. First to the true believers like chewbacca and others. Since you guys love to bash dems all the time, why dont you try and defend Bush's spending policies. I dont think Ive once seen you get the balls to try and defend this stuff. But since others always do it for you, the same goes for non true believers who just dont like dems.

because its another example of you being a republican in liberterian's clothing.

 

 

you bash the fiscal policy of kerry yet say nothing about the bush policy yet you claim to not defend it.

because its another example of you being a republican in liberterian's clothing.

 

 

you bash the fiscal policy of kerry yet say nothing about the bush policy yet you claim to not defend it.

619506[/snapback]

Exactly. What is it he always uses on other people? Since he doesnt denounce Bush's policies, he must actively support it.

I'll answer the question with one of my own. Most of the national debt is owed to whom?

The statistics show that foreign and international investors account for the entire increase in privately owned Treasury securities since George W. Bush took office. Issuing those securities is how the Treasury covered federal budget shortfalls. Privately owned Treasury securities are those that belong to investors, as opposed to those owned by federal government trust funds or the Federal Reserve Board. Private investors own about half our $7 trillion-plus of national debt; the Fed and federal trust funds own the rest.

 

According to Treasury data -- table OFS-2, if you want see for yourself, on the Web at www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/ b24ofs.doc -- when the Bush administration started, we had $2.88 trillion of privately held national debt, of which $1.03 trillion was owned by foreign and international investors. As of March 31, the most recent data available, privately owned debt had risen to $3.5 trillion, of which foreigners owned $1.71 trillion.

 

Now, a little math. Privately owned debt, as you can see, was up by $620 billion since the Bush administration started -- but foreigners' holdings were up by $680 billion. This means that foreigners accounted for the entire increase in privately held debt -- and then some.

 

 

 

 

......

 

 

 

 

Why should we care about our government getting hooked on foreign money? Because one day, for reasons of their own, foreign central banks, the major purchasers of Uncle Sam's securities, may cut way back or stop entirely. For strategic reasons, not malicious ones.

 

Foreign central banks often own Treasury securities to carry out strategies involving their own currencies. If their situation changes, they'll be gone. And we'll be up the creek.

 

We hear all sorts of comforting noises about how the budget deficit isn't so bad. That it's less than the 6 percent of gross domestic product it reached during the high point -- make that the low point -- of the fiscally irresponsible Reagan years. But when you add back the Social Security surplus -- money we're supposedly setting aside for future retirees, but that we're spending for current expenses -- we're closing in on 6 percent.

 

Of course, given the fact that the rest of the world is financing so much of our deficit, maybe we should look at our deficit not relative to the U.S. GDP, but to world GDP. Or interplanetary GDP, if we can find Martians or Venusians with a few bucks to lend us.

 

My problem with getting heavily hooked on foreign money -- or getting hooked on foreigners for any essential, such as oil -- is that it makes us vulnerable. And one day, the bill will come in. It always does.

 

Remember that old saw: Whose bread I eat, his song I sing. Tune up your vocal cords, fans. I don't know what we'll have to sing to satisfy our foreign creditors if the day of reckoning arrives while we're still hooked on their loans. But it sure won't be America the Beautiful.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...9-2004Jul5.html

The first part of the article presents the numbers I was referring too earlier when I say borrow more from foreign investors. Yeah its about 1/4 of the debt but is that ok with you? The "balance the budget to pay off our own Americans" theory doesnt work when they arent balancing the budget. It doesnt work when they continue to borrow more and more and the increase in foreign investments continues.

 

 

The second party of the article confers similiar fears I and many others have toward such policies.

 

 

Id still like to see some of the true believers step up. At least legacy is engaging in trying to defend this stuff and he is an admitted libertarian. None of the staunch supporters seem willing.

because its another example of you being a republican in liberterian's clothing.

 

 

you bash the fiscal policy of kerry yet say nothing about the bush policy yet you claim to not defend it.

619506[/snapback]

Exactly. What is it he always uses on other people? Since he doesnt denounce Bush's policies, he must actively support it.

619530[/snapback]

 

I've denounced numerous Bush and Republican policies in the past. I recall one post where someone challenged me similarly and I gave a list of major programs and positions I'm at odds with.

 

Should I go find those posts to refresh your memory and really slam-dunk you in a very embarrasing way?

 

I was previously accused of going soft on Pat Robertson and went back and found the previous post where I'd mocked him as a boob. It was either Sham or Rune who got slam-dunked on that one.

 

If you continue to paint me as something I'm not, it will become embarrasing for you.

619871[/snapback]

The occasional post of disagreement doesnt outweigh the immense amount of evidence of the clearly one sided agenda. Even Republicans say youre a Republican. You think its a coincidence that nobody views others like sorianofan and legacy this way?

Even Republicans say youre a Republican.

 

 

Only because they've never quizzed me on issues where we diverge - and they are many.

 

If you'd like to be a 3rd part y moderator and quiz me, feel free.

 

I've talken political leaning tests and came up smack in the middle on economic policy, and only a slight nod towards libertarian on social policy.

 

Quiz away.

619881[/snapback]

When has anyone ever quizzed anyone on the issues? Some things are obvious.

 

Do you understand the concept of basing things on peoples actions and not on their claims? Is that too much for you? Any liberal can list various issues on which they diverge from liberals. Same for conservatives. But when you average 5 new threads involving liberal bashing a day(not too much of an exagerration), most of which have no real point, where you stand is clear.

Interestingly, none of the Bush supporters has taken up my challenge on defending him. I guess its easy to bash Dan Rather when he is down but when it comes to saying something of substance, nobody is to be found.