Why wasn't the debt ceiling an issue in the past?

reply to post by mossme89


To answer your question, I think it is due to the rise of the so-called "Tea Party candidates" making it the issue it should have been all along.

Regardless of what boogeymen the elitists conjure up, we have arrived at our current economic calamity because of out of control spending. Mostly, spending solely for political purposes. None of it has helped anyone, except those seeking votes to remain in power.

Now, I think the question we should be asking is "Why would anyone believe ti is a good idea to increase the debt ceiling, just so government can grow?" Who really thinks it is wise to borrow more money, just to pay the interest on what has already been borrowed?

reply to post by mossme89


Well imagine getting a credit card and you max it out, but instead of paying you just keep raising your cards limits, eventually you'll be crushed under the weight of your debt, which is essentially whats happening now

Originally posted by LooksLikeWeMadeIt
here's some food for thought ~ the mouthpiece leading the resistance to any negotiation and / or compromise is Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va). he is a 6 term congressman. he is Speaker Boehnor's #2 man. get this: he has voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times under the great and powerful (NOT) Georgie W. Bush. all of a sudden a black Democrat takes up residence in the White House and Mr Cantor decides to change his stance? or does the Tea party have him by the (fill in the blanks)? ................ just my 2 cents

Actually Cantor has invested with a company who has taken a short position on T Bills I think. Basically that means if we hit the debt ceiling and the economy implodes, Cantor stands to make a lot of money on it. So I don't really think it has anything to do with Obama being black, as easy as it is to throw that out. Don't forget... they want us to think that they hate each other... when I'm sure everyone in DC is all buddy-buddy behind the scenes.

More info here: Link

Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested ... The fund aggressively "shorts" long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable.

reply to post by WTFover

The only "fair" system is for you, I and every other American to pay the same percentage of our incomes. Oh, and use our power of limiting the terms of Congress, before they develop a spending addiction. And, get control of the lobbying processes.

I can see your logic in that except, if I made a million bucks every year and had more tax write-offs for my mortgage(s) interest and business expenses/depreciation, the flat tax would still hit the middle class income harder with what they would have left over to spend. I like Ron Paul's idea of a simple fee placed on all goods purchases instead of an income tax. If I buy an expensive diamond ring, there is a State sales tax and a Federal tax. This seems like it would possibly generate more income because everyone makes purchases at all levels of income.


Here is a good article on the subject as well.

As for the inflationary effect of a sales tax, that would be negligible if food and rent, which make up almost half of the cost of living index, were exempted. Read more: www.time.com...

In 2008 U.S. debt was $10 trillion. It rose by almost $2 trillion from 2009 to 2010. Today it's $14.5 trillion. And they want to raise the debt ceiling to $16 trillion to allow yet more spending. Seriously, how does debt rise by $4 trillion in less than 4 years? It never has before. Ever. But now "we need to buckle up" and "the rich need to pay their fair share". Never mind that spending, and spending only got us into this mess.

Missing revenue from the rich isn't responsible for this. Government spending is. If the "rich" were taxed as much as the economic geniuses in Washington are proposing, it would net the federal government a whopping $100 billion per year. Man that's sure going to help out!

Meanwhile, that cost is passed on to the consumer. Man that's sure going to help out! Gosh, I wonder if poor people are consumers? I wonder if they will be affected by a rise in taxes on only the rich? Surely not! Math doesn't work on poor people!

You "tax the rich" bobbleheads need to get said head out of your rear ends.

/TOA

reply to post by ontarff

I can see your logic in that except, if I made a million bucks every year and had more tax write-offs for my mortgage(s) interest and business expenses/depreciation, the flat tax would still hit the middle class income harder with what they would have left over to spend

That's why the flat tax would work. There would be no exemptions, deductions or loopholes. There would be no advantage to hiding money in "foundations". Charitable contributions would be just that - charitable - with the only personal gain being helping others. The $13.3 billion dollar IRS budget could be cut dramatically, as an added benefit.

I'm still not completely sold on the idea of a "value added tax". I can just imagine the explosion in black market sales and scams with inferior products.

reply to post by WTFover

I'm still not completely sold on the idea of a "value added tax". I can just imagine the explosion in black market sales and scams with inferior products.

I agree, it is hard to determine, but that is also applicable today. I don't know that the problem would be exacerbated by a VAT. Maybe it would help ebay hire more people. Engineered obsolescence (new and improved) keeps profits up, the consumption cycle spinning and the Earth's resources being poorly managed. Would the exemption of a VAT for a used item help?

Originally posted by pplrnuts
Its because a few popular right-wing nutters on the radio and TV ruffled all the deluded conservatives up because Obama wants to start helping the poor and middle class by making the wealthy start paying their fair share for a change.

So the republicans and tea-party folks who are well-funded by the wealthy started raising hell and deluded folks became their groupies in the whole fiasco and you have a big deal over it now.

Bottom line, the wealthy dont want to start paying their fair share so they have the republican and tea party folks raising hell for them now.

And the nutters are all parroting the words "socialism", and "commies" because they have NO REAL substance other than dumb fear-based words.

Its really that simple.

edit on 16-7-2011 by pplrnuts because: (no reason given)

Yes, Yes it really is that simple. That is, unless you depend on your favorite media outlet to do your thinking for you.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mossme89

 

It's the reason/issue WHY it's being raised. It's to support more keynesian economics, support the growing entitlement programs (because unemployment is so high), and to support the ever increasing government programs.

Just my take on it.

I guess Bush was running keynesian economics while he was in office huh? How many times did they raise for him. The problem now is simple a democrat wants it raised.

Just because Bush "did it" doesn't make it right.
Didn't like TARP then, don't like this spending now.

(Hint; Bush isn't POTUS anymore, Obama is)

Where was the complaints about spending and the debt?

Originally posted by LooksLikeWeMadeIt
here's some food for thought ~ the mouthpiece leading the resistance to any negotiation and / or compromise is Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va). he is a 6 term congressman. he is Speaker Boehnor's #2 man. get this: he has voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times under the great and powerful (NOT) Georgie W. Bush. all of a sudden a black Democrat takes up residence in the White House and Mr Cantor decides to change his stance? or does the Tea party have him by the (fill in the blanks)? ................ just my 2 cents

BLACK
BLACK
BLACK

You can't tell me you haven't noticed our economy has gone completely into the crapper,unemployment is probably(unofficially) approaching 20%. The economy is "teetering" on the brink of collapse. There is no real hope for the serious increases ( growth) in GNP in the near future to justify infinite increases in our debt.

Things are vastly different than they were 10 years ago, the public is moderately more aware and informed on the goobermint and markets due to improvements and growth of the 'net.

We blew our checking account on worldwide banker bailouts; the public pretty much universally shouted "NO" to,but congress went ahead anyway.( bush/paulsen et al were inthe cockpit for that "solution": no argument..)

A result of watching wanton govt wasteful spending ( and frustration over a "deaf "congress) swelled the ranks of the newly formed local teaparty organizations and swept "teaparty backed" candidates into office.

The post above re: the Euro vs. dollar presents an interesting facet I hadn't considered.

This president is "opposed" because he is all about "huge central government" public spending as most dems are.

This president is "hated" because a major campaign point of his came across as:" Uh this the greatest nation in the world; We need to fundamentally "change" (that) America". First:lady: "For the first time in my life I'm proud of my country"...Its no puzzle why these two generate such animosity from conservative patriots. While the left is too busy flagellating( whipping) themselves over the "horrid past sins" of America and running around the world apologizing to notice.
but its easier to blather:"black, black , black!"

Gawd I'm trying to stay away from all the blind insults thrown in this forum , just gets my "coffee" bubbling..
Here's the argument sofar:

"black
black
black!
("fair share"...)
Sure we can afford it. We have "lots" (of ?).
"stupid racist repubs".

I'm personally all for a large portion of isolationism: Go ahead cut some "defense"spending . Pull our troops home from across the world.of course what's that gonna do for unemployment?

What is different raising the ceiling this time; is simply that it surpasses the GDP.

If one has a company valued $1,000,000, loaning more than $990,000 is considered economic suicide!
Sounds like planned bankruptcy to me....

FromWiki:

As of June 29, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United States of America was $14.46 trillion and was approximately 98.6% of calendar year 2010's annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $14.66 trillion.

Originally posted by warrenmess
It is simple. We have had a huge, booming economy and didn't worry about how much we had to pay. People were feeling good, the government was feeling good and everyone was giving money away like candy and printing it like newspapers. Those days are long gone now and we can't afford to pay our debt any more. It is like having a credit card that you can't afford now, getting a credit limit increase and then charging it up to its max.

It is a big deal now because it is a big deal everywhere. The hype is a little over played but the impact will be devastating to economies around the world.

They projected a $5 trillion surplus in 2000 or something. So you're right.

Link: It’s Hard to Worry About a Deficit 10 Years Out

So had there been no 9/11, no wars, no big tax cuts and stimulus bills (in response to recession), no housing crisis (parts of which were put into motion in the 1990's), and so on.

A $5 trillion surplus was reduced to a deficit. We lost $2 trillion between 2009 and 2010, alone.

The point of the article is that we don't know the future until we know.

Originally posted by LooksLikeWeMadeIt
here's some food for thought ~ the mouthpiece leading the resistance to any negotiation and / or compromise is Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va). he is a 6 term congressman. he is Speaker Boehnor's #2 man. get this: he has voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times under the great and powerful (NOT) Georgie W. Bush. all of a sudden a black Democrat takes up residence in the White House and Mr Cantor decides to change his stance? or does the Tea party have him by the (fill in the blanks)? ................ just my 2 cents

You do know he is half black and half white? Why do you insist on calling him black? Debt ceiling shouldn't of been raised then and it shouldn't be raised now, but our debt wasn't 14 trillion then. Its gotten way out of hand it wasn't stopped back then but we need to stop it now and get this mess under control.

I think it was an issue.

February 2010 - $14.294 trillion
December 2009 - $12.394 trillion
February 2009 - $12.104 trillion
October 2008 - $11.315 trillion
July 2008 - $10.615 trillion
September 2007 - $9.815 trillion
March 2006 - $8.965 trillion
November 2004 - $8.184
May 2003 - $7.384 trillion
June 2002 - $6.4 trillion
August 1997 - $5.95 trillion
March 1996 - $5.5 trillion
August 1993 - $4.9 trillion
April 1993 - $4.37 trillion
November 1990 - $4.145 trillion
October 1990 - $3.23 trillion
November 1989 - $3.1227 trillion
August 1989 - $2.87 trillion
September 1987 - $2.8 trillion
August 1987 - $2.352 trillion
July 1987 - $2.32 trillion
October 1986 - $2.3 trillion

usgovinfo.about.com...

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama 2006

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama 2006

edit on 17-7-2011 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)

Where is the link for this quotation? I like your post. Ironic isn't it?

reply to post by ontarff


I just quickly googled that quote, and based on the results, it seems like a legit quote.