Senate OKs $800B Debt Limit Hike

[zimv20]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20041118/ap_on_go_co/congress_spending_debt)


WASHINGTON - Congress is ready to send President Bush (news - web sites) an $800 billion debt limit increase, a testament to the massive federal deficits that have marked his administration.

With no alternative but an unprecedented federal default, the House planned to vote Thursday to boost the debt ceiling from its current $7.38 trillion level, following Senate passage Wednesday. The government reached the cap last month, paying its bills since with cash from a civil service retirement account, which it plans to repay.

"We are nearing the end of our rope, and it is critical that Congress act," said Treasury Department (news - web sites) spokesman Rob Nichols.

The vote approached as lawmakers move toward finishing their work for the year and ending what they hope will be an abbreviated lame-duck session. Heading the remaining business is a compromise $388 billion spending package financing most domestic programs.

That overdue measure, which House-Senate bargainers hope to complete by Friday, curbs the recent growth of funds for biomedical research and education. It cuts Bush priorities, including a nuclear waste repository in Nevada, a hydrogen fuel initiative and aid to countries embracing open-market and democratic reforms.

The Republican-led Senate approved the debt limit bill by 52-44, with only two Democrats and one Republican switching sides. The debate prompted Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), D-Mass., to make his first speech in the Senate since his defeat in the Nov. 2 presidential election.

"The United States is operating a borrow-and-spend government, continuously stretched by demands for more tax cuts and more spending," he said. "And when they don't have the money to pay for their choices, they just put the tab on the national credit card and send the bill to our kids."

Not a single Republican spoke during debate on the debt limit bill, reflecting how politically uncomfortable the measure is for them. That discomfort was highlighted when they refused to bring the bill to a vote before the elections.

Completion of the debt limit measure would raise the government's borrowing limit to $8.18 trillion. That is $2.23 trillion higher than when Bush became president in 2001, and more than eight times the debt President Reagan faced when he took office in 1981.

Democrats noted that the $5.6 trillion in surpluses that were projected for the next 10 years when Bush took office in 2001 have been transformed into $2.3 trillion in deficits now estimated for the coming decade. This is the third time since he entered the White House that Bush has gotten Congress to boost the borrowing limit.

(more)

[Thomas Veil]

I think foreign banks need to learn another Republican mantra: Just Say No.

[mactastic]

Not a single Republican spoke during debate on the debt limit bill, reflecting how politically uncomfortable the measure is for them. That discomfort was highlighted when they refused to bring the bill to a vote before the elections.

What a bunch of hypocrites. Attacking Kerry as a tax-n-spend liberal while holding back an up-or-down vote on this issue, both soley for political purposes. And they call themselves the party of morals. Sick and wrong. :mad:

[Desertrat]

mac, you ever run the numbers on the federal budget?

The Irag doings cost us, what, some $100 billion per year?

The Bush tax cuts forego, what, some $100 billion per year?

The deficit is running somewhere north of $450 billion per year, right?

If I'm halfway right, we're going in the hole $250 billion a year even if we pull out of Iraq and jack up taxes where they were in 2000.

So, of obligated and prior-law spending, what would you cut? The Old Farts' Free Pill Act hasn't even kicked in, yet, moneywise. We could dump No Child Left Behind, since folks here don't think it works.

I dunno...

Art

[Xtremehkr]

Yeah I would he say he could have gone without being the first President to cut taxes in a time of war. Or giving $140 Billion (more than the public was told about) to the pharmacuetical industry and calling it a health care plan. Or the $1.5 Billion to promote marriages. Or the uncontested $7 Billion to Halliburton to rebuild a country when they have a record of ripping the government off.

Have you taken a look at the increases in Federal Government Expenditures? GWB has increased the size of government more than any Democrat.

Perhaps there is a really good explanation for why we are mortgaging the country?

What did I read somewhere, it's like imposing a "child tax" for future generations who are going to be working to pay that interest off.

[Ugg]

Currency traders are betting that the dollar will lose even more value given gw's lack of desire to trim the deficit. Snow has been in Europe this week and his lack of substantial support for a strong dollar means that it will only get worse. What's more is that gw has utterly failed to address the deficit issue. What were his first words after the election? To overhaul SS at an estimated cost of over $7 trillion over 10 years. Hardly the sign of a president who is paying attention to the plight of US importers AND exporters. There are precious few companies making products solely from US made parts. While a low dollar should help exports, it also increases the costs of manufacturing, probably one of the reasons why US exports have had such a dismal year. Also, Greenspan is likely to retire in the next couple of years and many around the world view him as the major reason to invest in the US. Should his successor in any way founder, I've no doubt the dollar will tank even further.

Despite the Eurozone's less than spectacular growth and reluctance on the part of Germany and France to restrain deficit spending, the Euro is increasingly seen as a safer and less volatile currency than is the dollar. I've seen some estimates that if the US deficit isn't cut in half, the Euro could jump to 1.8 to the dollar. The Swiss Franc has also seen a huge increase as has gold, the increase of both of those has always boded ill for the US dollar.

[mactastic]

mac, you ever run the numbers on the federal budget?

The Irag doings cost us, what, some $100 billion per year?

The Bush tax cuts forego, what, some $100 billion per year?

The deficit is running somewhere north of $450 billion per year, right?

If I'm halfway right, we're going in the hole $250 billion a year even if we pull out of Iraq and jack up taxes where they were in 2000.

So, of obligated and prior-law spending, what would you cut? The Old Farts' Free Pill Act hasn't even kicked in, yet, moneywise. We could dump No Child Left Behind, since folks here don't think it works.

I dunno...

Art

Art (Art?) I'm not making any judgement about the need for raising the debt ceiling at this point. It's a done deal, and needs to happen so we can repay the money we're already pulling from another source. I think it sucks that many people (yourself seemingly included) use the excuse that because we're already at least $250B in the hole by your account, that we might as well go whole hog and jack that up to a half billion. The GOP run Congress is spending like a you-know-what. The supposedly fiscally conservative president hasn't managed to find his veto pen yet to reign in the Congress. He has expanded the federal government at a rate that would shame any self-respecting conservative.

And yet the party was more than happy to let GWB go on the campaign trail and ridicule Kerry as a Taxachusettes tax-n-spend liberal. That pisses me off when I hear such hipocracy. That was what I was grousing about, and putting it off until after the election when a lame-duck Congress gets to put the stamp on it. F-that. Have some balls. If you are talk the talk of fiscal conservatism, walk the walk too.

Same way I felt about the Democrats who rolled over and gave Bush the authority to go to war because they were scared they would lose big the next time around. Well guess what guys! :mad:

[skunk]

hypocrisy

[IJ Reilly]

The single largest hazard of the runaway deficit and plunging dollar is the prospect of foreign investors losing their appetite for US federal debt. Combine this with the recent spike in inflation and I think it's not too soon to worry about high interest rates combined with inflation and mediocre economic growth, aka, stagflation -- perhaps not on the magnitude of the 1970s, but enough to take a real bite out of consumer spending. And where is the US economy without consumer spending? That's right, nowheresville.

A glimmer of hope: The stock markets have performed reasonably well this year, so the federal tax take might be higher than projected and the deficit a bit smaller than anticipated.

[skunk]

consumer spending
Read: "Consumer Borrowing".

[pseudobrit]

jack that up to a half billion

That's half trillion, with a tr.

It looks like this:

450,000,000,000

That's 450 thousand million dollars.

Our national debt ceiling (which we're going to hit sooner than later) looks like this:

8,180,000,000,000

That's over eight million million dollars

As of right now the debt is 7,447,292,610,356.92 and it grows 1,600,000,000 every day.

At the current rate of spending, we'll borrow all of that credit limit in 458 days.

Sometime in Spring year after next we'll need a higher limit. Again.

Maybe we can open another national debt and use one to pay off the other.

[skunk]

Shoulda listened to Mr Micawber...

[takao]

That's half trillion, with a tr.

It looks like this:

450,000,000,000

That's 450 thousand million dollars.

Our national debt ceiling (which we're going to hit sooner than later) looks like this:

8,180,000,000,000

That's over eight million million dollars

As of right now the debt is 7,447,292,610,356.92 and it grows 1,600,000,000 every day.

At the current rate of spending, we'll borrow all of that credit limit in 458 days.

Sometime in Spring year after next we'll need a higher limit. Again.

Maybe we can open another national debt and use one to pay off the other.

man i had a lecture about astronomy today and the numbers were not as impressive than this

in 2005 austria will have more than 5 billion deficit ...nearly 2 more than the year before... if austria would be the size of the US it would be still below 200 billions ..and the total deficit (150 billion euro) would be 5625 billions..our politicians like to spend a lot too ;)
(with a deficit of 5 billions do we really need to shell out 1,5 billions _more_ for getting eurofighters instead of gripens when we are surrounded by friendly nations with a lot of bigger airforces anyway ?)

nice quote:

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.
Richard Feynman

[mactastic]

That's half trillion, with a tr.

Oh I was only talking deficit figures for this year. I don't think we're a half trill in the hole this year alone. I hope not anyway!

[stubeeef]

I've got a great idea,

Let's all get our zero interest for 12+ months credit card offers together, and just roll that 8t over interest free!

[Ugg]

(with a deficit of 5 billions do we really need to shell out 1,5 billions _more_ for getting eurofighters instead of gripens when we are surrounded by friendly nations with a lot of bigger airforces anyway ?)


What about those crazy Slovaks to the east? :D and the Ukraine is just beyond them.....

It's not about whether Austria or any other country needs them, it's about whose **** is bigger. The US military is littered with useless planes, ships and defense systems simply because of someone's perceived inadequacy in the bedroom. That and watching too many John Wayne movies.

[stubeeef]

That and watching too many John Wayne movies.

Impossible, you can never watch too many John Wayne movies! :eek:

[pseudobrit]

Oh I was only talking deficit figures for this year. I don't think we're a half trill in the hole this year alone. I hope not anyway!

I know. And yes, we almost are.

we're already at least $250B in the hole by your account, that we might as well go whole hog and jack that up to a half billion.

"Jacking up" 250 billion would mean you'd jack it up to half a trillion, or $500 billion.

[Xtremehkr]

Claim vs. Fact (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702)

You can check people claims about the deficit vs. reality here.

[Desertrat]

Mac, if I had my druthers, there'd be neither deficit nor debt.

There is relatively little discretionary spending in the federal budget unless Congress actually reduces programs. Yeah, they twiddle a bit, here and there, but there are never any notable reductions in total program spending.

Congress either raises the debt ceiling or shuts down the government. We've seen the political gamesmanship of shutdowns from just arguments over El Prez not signing a budget he doesn't like...

But I think my question is germane; where's the balanced-budget $250 billion supposed to come from?

'Rat

[mactastic]

There is relatively little discretionary spending in the federal budget unless Congress actually reduces programs.

There is another way to reduce the deficit besides just cutting programs....

[skunk]

Yeah, but nobody dares talk about it. :rolleyes: