You're an idiot. Paul is 72 and that vote thief Hagel is only 61 and only served 2 terms in the senate to Pauls 10 terms in congress. Paul will not retire for any other reason but he wants to and not because he fears losing a race for the 14th district of Texas (if he runs he will win with plenty of room to spare).
bottom line when you let a government run unchecked living on massive amounts of credit, they likely aren't going to be making the sound decisions, let me see if they raised the debt ceiling again yet have to be getting close to the 9 trillion dollar mark.
don't think they have yet getting close
July 30, 2007
Update on the Debt Limit
So now it's official--Treasury Secretary Paulson says that the federal government will hit the current debt ceiling of $8.965 trillion in early October. And he says Congress needs to act to raise the debt limit for the fifth time during Bush's presidency. In September. Right around the report from General Petraeus that will give Bush his marching orders on Iraq, and Congress will finally deal with the war funding issues, and right in the middle of the debates on the appropriation bills.
The Herald Tribune notes that
Economists doubt Congress will refuse to raise the limit. A federal default is considered unimaginable because it would rattle bond markets, force interest rates higher and shake the economy. (snip)
In the past, Treasury has resorted to numerous accounting maneuvers to pay its bills while the government waited for Congress to expand its borrowing authority. Paulson argued against being forced to use such measures, saying they "would create unnecessary uncertainty for the financial markets and result in costs to the government." Such actions, he said. "should be reserved only for extraordinary circumstances, and should be avoided."
But these are extraordinary times. To many of us, we are already in a constitutional crisis, with an incompetent and mendacious Attorney General presiding over an overtly political Justice Demartment that serves the interests of the GOP and its patrons rather than the country as a whole; with a President and Vice President who consider themselves a unitary monarch and thumb their collective nose at the Congress; and a Congress that has so far mostly been afraid to see much less do its constitutional duty in this crisis.
So maybe the debt limit will become a factor in the war funding battle and the fight over the appropriations bills, at least eight of which (out of 12) Bush has already threatened to veto. Clinton won the showdown with Newt Gingrich in 1995 because the public supported the programs that he wanted funded, and viewed Gingrich, who refused to pass a funding bill after Clinton's veto, thereby shutting down the government, as a Grinch. Now it is Bush who is unpopular. But does the public still support the kind of spending that the Dems champion? Part of Bush's strategy has been to make government look so incompetent that it undermines public support for government programs, traditionally part of the Dems' appeal. But it is likely the public still supports funding security measures at the ports, higher education, children's health and the myriad of other programs included in the spending bills.
Every confrontation actually weakens the Bush/Cheney regime, because it fractures the GOP coalition; this one is no exception. The Dems need to play their full funding hand and play it well, and that includes not rolling over prematurely on raising the debt limit. There are a great many things the Bush/Cheney regime can do on their own, but authorizing borrowing and spending are the two big things that they can't do alone. Congress must get something tangible on the war in return for accommodating Bush/Cheney's fiscal needs.
July 30, 2007
Update on the Debt Limit
So now it's official--Treasury Secretary Paulson says that the federal government will hit the current debt ceiling of $8.965 trillion in early October. And he says Congress needs to act to raise the debt limit for the fifth time during Bush's presidency. In September. Right around the report from General Petraeus that will give Bush his marching orders on Iraq, and Congress will finally deal with the war funding issues, and right in the middle of the debates on the appropriation bills.
The Herald Tribune notes that
Economists doubt Congress will refuse to raise the limit. A federal default is considered unimaginable because it would rattle bond markets, force interest rates higher and shake the economy. (snip)
In the past, Treasury has resorted to numerous accounting maneuvers to pay its bills while the government waited for Congress to expand its borrowing authority. Paulson argued against being forced to use such measures, saying they "would create unnecessary uncertainty for the financial markets and result in costs to the government." Such actions, he said. "should be reserved only for extraordinary circumstances, and should be avoided."
But these are extraordinary times. To many of us, we are already in a constitutional crisis, with an incompetent and mendacious Attorney General presiding over an overtly political Justice Demartment that serves the interests of the GOP and its patrons rather than the country as a whole; with a President and Vice President who consider themselves a unitary monarch and thumb their collective nose at the Congress; and a Congress that has so far mostly been afraid to see much less do its constitutional duty in this crisis.
So maybe the debt limit will become a factor in the war funding battle and the fight over the appropriations bills, at least eight of which (out of 12) Bush has already threatened to veto. Clinton won the showdown with Newt Gingrich in 1995 because the public supported the programs that he wanted funded, and viewed Gingrich, who refused to pass a funding bill after Clinton's veto, thereby shutting down the government, as a Grinch. Now it is Bush who is unpopular. But does the public still support the kind of spending that the Dems champion? Part of Bush's strategy has been to make government look so incompetent that it undermines public support for government programs, traditionally part of the Dems' appeal. But it is likely the public still supports funding security measures at the ports, higher education, children's health and the myriad of other programs included in the spending bills.
Every confrontation actually weakens the Bush/Cheney regime, because it fractures the GOP coalition; this one is no exception. The Dems need to play their full funding hand and play it well, and that includes not rolling over prematurely on raising the debt limit. There are a great many things the Bush/Cheney regime can do on their own, but authorizing borrowing and spending are the two big things that they can't do alone. Congress must get something tangible on the war in return for accommodating Bush/Cheney's fiscal needs.
Interesing the raise to 9 trillion in 2006 only won by 52-48 vote.....things could get very interesting....no more funny money for you bush? probably the easiest way to stop the war honestly. would the dems have the stones to do it probably not?
by the way a message to all americans you are 30,000 dollars more in debt than you are on your personal side of your finances. will you have to pay it back before you croak? we shall see
Neo-cons want to not raise taxes but at the same time spend like banshees....sounds conservative to me
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate voted Thursday to allow the national debt to swell to nearly $9 trillion, preventing a first-ever default on U.S. Treasury notes.
The bill passed by a 52-48 vote. The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.
The measure allows the government to pay for the war in Iraq and finance Medicare and other big federal programs without raising taxes. It passed hours before the House was expected to approve another $91 billion to fund the war in Iraq and provide more aid to hurricane victims.
The partisan vote also came as the Senate continued debate on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year that would produce a $359 billion deficit for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
The debt limit will increase by $781 billion. It's the fourth such move _ increasing the debt limit by a total of $3 trillion _ since Bush took office five years ago.
The vote came a day after Treasury Secretary John Snow warned lawmakers that action was "critical to provide certainty to financial markets that the integrity of the obligations of the United States will not be compromised."
On Thursday, Treasury postponed next week's auction of three-month and six-month bills pending Senate action, though the move was likely to be quickly reversed given the Senate's vote.
The present limit on the debt is $8.2 trillion. With the budget deficit expected to approach $400 billion for both this year and next, another increase in the debt limit will almost certainly be required next year.
by the way a message to all americans you are 30,000 dollars more in debt than you are on your personal side of your finances. will you have to pay it back before you croak? we shall see
Neo-cons want to not raise taxes but at the same time spend like banshees....sounds conservative to me
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate voted Thursday to allow the national debt to swell to nearly $9 trillion, preventing a first-ever default on U.S. Treasury notes.
The bill passed by a 52-48 vote. The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.
The measure allows the government to pay for the war in Iraq and finance Medicare and other big federal programs without raising taxes. It passed hours before the House was expected to approve another $91 billion to fund the war in Iraq and provide more aid to hurricane victims.
The partisan vote also came as the Senate continued debate on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year that would produce a $359 billion deficit for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
The debt limit will increase by $781 billion. It's the fourth such move _ increasing the debt limit by a total of $3 trillion _ since Bush took office five years ago.
The vote came a day after Treasury Secretary John Snow warned lawmakers that action was "critical to provide certainty to financial markets that the integrity of the obligations of the United States will not be compromised."
On Thursday, Treasury postponed next week's auction of three-month and six-month bills pending Senate action, though the move was likely to be quickly reversed given the Senate's vote.
The present limit on the debt is $8.2 trillion. With the budget deficit expected to approach $400 billion for both this year and next, another increase in the debt limit will almost certainly be required next year.
I just hope to god economics becoming a major topic in the politic arena before the primaries....enough with all the war/anti-war bickering....lets get on with the #1 issue facing our nation long term....and ron paul can knock this issue out of the park.
so Joe any response to the economics behind this whole mess? just keep raising the debt ceiling indefinetely and continue to keep taxes low and worry about it later? seems like what the other republicans running for president are proposing, talking about fair tax and at the same time saying stay the course in iraq. or as usual you only focus on one thing war, war and more war?
Guess 2 trillion just a drop in the bucket....this study assumes we are there till 2010 probably not likely
and everybody forgets about the after affects of war financially taking care of those that came out with long term health problems of some sort....granted i'm sure we will underfund them as is normally the case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion
Tally exceeds White House projections
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 8, 2006
(Correction: Because of an editing error, the names of Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes were misspelled in an early edition in Sunday's World pages in a story about the cost of the war in Iraq.)
The cost of the Iraq war could top $US2 trillion ($A2.66 trillion), far above the US administration's pre-war projections, according to a new study.
The study takes into account long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded US soldiers.
Columbia University economist Joseph E Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes included the disability payments for the 16,000 wounded US soldiers, about 20 per cent of whom suffer serious brain or spinal injuries.
They said US taxpayers will be burdened with costs that linger long after US troops withdraw.
"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs.
"We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."
Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor".
He rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high".
Unforeseen costs include recruiting to replenish a military drained by multiple tours of duty, slower long-term US economic growth and health-care bills for treating long-term mental illness suffered by war veterans.
Citing army statistics, the study said about 30 per cent of US troops had developed mental-health problems within three to four months of returning from Iraq as of July 2005.
Stiglitz won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
He and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger US budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.
They said a portion of the rise in oil prices - about 20 per cent of the $US25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began - could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $US25 billion ($A33 billion).
"Americans are, in a sense, poorer by that amount," they said, describing that estimate as conservative.
The projection of a total cost of $US2 trillion ($A2.66 trillion) assumes US troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year.
They projected the number of troops there in 2006 at about 136,000. Currently, the US has 153,000 troops in Iraq.
and everybody forgets about the after affects of war financially taking care of those that came out with long term health problems of some sort....granted i'm sure we will underfund them as is normally the case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economists say cost of war could top $2 trillion
Tally exceeds White House projections
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 8, 2006
(Correction: Because of an editing error, the names of Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes were misspelled in an early edition in Sunday's World pages in a story about the cost of the war in Iraq.)
The cost of the Iraq war could top $US2 trillion ($A2.66 trillion), far above the US administration's pre-war projections, according to a new study.
The study takes into account long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded US soldiers.
Columbia University economist Joseph E Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes included the disability payments for the 16,000 wounded US soldiers, about 20 per cent of whom suffer serious brain or spinal injuries.
They said US taxpayers will be burdened with costs that linger long after US troops withdraw.
"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs.
"We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."
Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor".
He rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high".
Unforeseen costs include recruiting to replenish a military drained by multiple tours of duty, slower long-term US economic growth and health-care bills for treating long-term mental illness suffered by war veterans.
Citing army statistics, the study said about 30 per cent of US troops had developed mental-health problems within three to four months of returning from Iraq as of July 2005.
Stiglitz won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
He and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger US budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.
They said a portion of the rise in oil prices - about 20 per cent of the $US25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began - could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $US25 billion ($A33 billion).
"Americans are, in a sense, poorer by that amount," they said, describing that estimate as conservative.
The projection of a total cost of $US2 trillion ($A2.66 trillion) assumes US troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year.
They projected the number of troops there in 2006 at about 136,000. Currently, the US has 153,000 troops in Iraq.
Regardless, it must be -- and will be -- addressed. Fred Thompson has been a lot of more specific about necessary entitlement reform than someone like Ron Paul. Fred talks a great deal about federalism.
Of course, George Bush tried to reform social security, but as we both know, it's tough to take away your kid's Halloween candy.
Straying off topic, again, repeating the same debunked talking points, I see.
Debating with a blind ideologue like you is a waste of time. Whenever I take the time to type out a few pages of my own analysis, you won't respond and instead will cut and paste some else's opinionated crap nobody reads anyway.
Not only is it unproductive, it demonstrates your lack of respect for other people's opinions.
All you really need to is your guy is going down in flames, for much of the same reasons. The Paulestinian spamming all over the net is counterproductive but you won't see it until Paul bows out, I suppose.
Oh well...
you said bush tried to reform social security and you admitted that didn't go very well, and i responded with other bush policies how is that straying off topic
regardless the fact of the matter is the economics behind everything we do will come into play very soon. Government whether it likes it or not won't have the capacity to do whatever the hell it pleases for much longer (including taking it to the terrorists) as its credit line will dry up.
the #1 national security threat facing our nation is the ECONOMY not some crazy muslims on another continent, and we are digging our own grave.
regardless the fact of the matter is the economics behind everything we do will come into play very soon. Government whether it likes it or not won't have the capacity to do whatever the hell it pleases for much longer (including taking it to the terrorists) as its credit line will dry up.
the #1 national security threat facing our nation is the ECONOMY not some crazy muslims on another continent, and we are digging our own grave.
anyway i'll stop with the economic rants most people not interested in hearing about it, duck our head in the sands and hope everything turns out okay, don't forget continue to shop till you drop its patriotic....we need 80 threads about terrorists and 9/11 conspiracy theories instead as those are more pertinant issues...i'll leave this to the sell, sell, sell thread.
Abosolutely correct. Why do you think the FED has not lowered rates yet. Their hands are tied because if they lower rates, the dollar plummets even further, and if they raise rates, the housing market crashes. Not a good situation. They're hoping this credit bubble blows over, but unfortunately, history shows that it's not going to be that easy.
Also, the 9 trillion dollars is a joke. It's really more like 50-60 trillion. If the U.S. government would practice accounting principles like any other business, they would take into account future entitlements due like Social Security and Medicare etc...
Health care is another big issue. I am in the health care industry, and if there isn't a major overhaul in the system in the next 5-10 years, the whole system will go bankrupt. Medicare cuts their reimbursements every year and the money is drying up fast. The elderly population of the U.S. is going to double in the next 30 years, and that will only make matters worse.
Also, the 9 trillion dollars is a joke. It's really more like 50-60 trillion. If the U.S. government would practice accounting principles like any other business, they would take into account future entitlements due like Social Security and Medicare etc...
Health care is another big issue. I am in the health care industry, and if there isn't a major overhaul in the system in the next 5-10 years, the whole system will go bankrupt. Medicare cuts their reimbursements every year and the money is drying up fast. The elderly population of the U.S. is going to double in the next 30 years, and that will only make matters worse.
Also one more note government isn't going to be able to pony up to the entitlements unless the younger generations is willing to hand the government over 50% of their paycheck and live with the fact that they will likely never see a dime of social security and medicare when they retire. the younger generation will revolt before that happens.
