• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

It's interest payments, so it is a recurring cost, and it is from one day. Of course you knew that since you read the source...
LOL - yes let's take interest into account so this looks REALLY ridiculous.
 
Please show me the $5+ trillion in "stimulus related spending" that has caused the increase we've seen.

First, spending has not increased by $5+ trillion. You are talking about the increase in deficits which are also the result of decreased revenue as a result of the recession. In terms of extraordinary stimulus spending you can count:

$168 billion (Bush 2008 tax rebates)
$390 billion (TARP)
$850 billion (stimulus bill)
$ 80 billion (Bush/Obama auto bailouts)
$ 60 billion (extending unemployment)

for a total of about $1.5 trillion. Then we have also lost between one and two trillion dollars as a result of reduced revenue collection due to the recession.

So let's say that $3 trillion out of the $5 trillion is directly attributable to the recession and not the result of long-term policy problems. That still leaves a sizeable shortfall, but it's not unmanageable.
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I said earlier in this thread that policies from the last several decades have caused a multitude of our problems. However, from 2007-2011 we've seen the debt increase over $5 trillion dollars. That's $5 trillion of just under $15 trillion, or 1/3 of the total debt....in 4 years. And again, I'm not blaming Obama and Obama alone. His senate position and his presidency automatically load him up with some level of culpability. As do the legislative positions of everybody in the house and senate any time from 2007 to 2011, as well as the presidency of GWB. In less than 3 years, the debt has increased almost $4 trillion dollars, which is a little more than $1.5 trillion a year. If Obama serves two terms and we do not curb spending, that means he'll have resided over $12 trillion in new debt, which more than doubles the debt level that existed at the end of GWB's presidency.

Now, the chart I found shows that Reagan resided over a total increase of $3.2 trillion dollars. Considering the changing value of the dollar, that would be about $7.23 trillion today.

See, there is this thing called inflation. What it means is that 5t today is much less than 5t several years ago. This is what I am talking about with buying what you are told without examining it. Saying "OMG, 5 trillion dollars" is meaningless without a frame of reference.
 
See, there is this thing called inflation. What it means is that 5t today is much less than 5t several years ago. This is what I am talking about with buying what you are told without examining it. Saying "OMG, 5 trillion dollars" is meaningless without a frame of reference.

To be fair, she took inflation into account in her last sentence.
 
LOL - yes let's take interest into account so this looks REALLY ridiculous.

So you really do not know how interest payments work? Hint: they happen more than once.
 
To be fair, she took inflation into account in her last sentence.

True, but again she is not looking at all the other factors, such as GDP level, size of debt, and so on. The biggest issue we have here is that people only look at what supports there case, and there are so many ways to put out economic data it is unreal. In no way has Obama come close to adding to the debt in the same manner Reagan or Bush did, and that is considering he has not yet had time to show whether he would have, post recovery done the right thing, or done as Reagan and Bush did and keep right on spending.
 
See, there is this thing called inflation. What it means is that 5t today is much less than 5t several years ago. This is what I am talking about with buying what you are told without examining it. Saying "OMG, 5 trillion dollars" is meaningless without a frame of reference.

To be fair, most conservatives dont know what inflation is since they rarely (at least on these boards) adjust for it in any statistical material they present as "evidence" of how bad the left has screwed the American people.... which of course makes their argument at best laugable... much like Michele Bachmann's comment about she wanting the dollar today as having the same value as the dollar of 1911...
 
See, there is this thing called inflation. What it means is that 5t today is much less than 5t several years ago. This is what I am talking about with buying what you are told without examining it. Saying "OMG, 5 trillion dollars" is meaningless without a frame of reference.

I provided you with a comparison between 1982 and today. Today, the debt under Reagan would equate to about 7.23 trillion. So using today's numbers, we've almost matched in 4 years what took 8 years when he was president.
 
I provided you with a comparison between 1982 and today. Today, the debt under Reagan would equate to about 7.23 trillion. So using today's numbers, we've almost matched in 4 years what took 8 years when he was president.

What was Reagan's starting and ending deficit? Why don't you want to look at the whole picture?
 
To be fair, most conservatives dont know what inflation is since they rarely (at least on these boards) adjust for it in any statistical material they present as "evidence" of how bad the left has screwed the American people.... which of course makes their argument at best laugable... much like Michele Bachmann's comment about she wanting the dollar today as having the same value as the dollar of 1911...

To be fair, you obviously didn't read my post and just jumped at the chance to throw cons under the bus, as I very clearly referenced a comparison on the basis of inflation in my last sentence.

Also, to be fair, Redress initially referenced Reagan tripling the debt, and my retort was in response to that relatively ambiguous view of debt increase.

Why is it, Pete, that all you do is post insulting generalizations and ignorant assumptions about the right, while contributing nothing and failing to respond to sound points made by those you disagree with?
 
Graphic representation:

Government Spending Chart in United States 2000-2011 - Federal State Local

usgs_line.php


usgs_line.php


usgs_line.php
 
Last edited:
I provided you with a comparison between 1982 and today. Today, the debt under Reagan would equate to about 7.23 trillion. So using today's numbers, we've almost matched in 4 years what took 8 years when he was president.

Yes, but you forgot to factor in a much higher tax income and the lack of 2 wars, plus a financial melt down not seen since the 1930s and so on. Just saying, it is not that easy to make comparisons without factoring in all the many differences that attributed to each President's "raise" in the debt and even deficit and it is especially difficult considering the partisan "fog of war" both sides like to throw in... like the conservatives holding Reagan up as some sort of God despite his many many flaws (he was a tax raiser!!!!).
 
What was Reagan's starting and ending deficit? Why don't you want to look at the whole picture?

It was 1.7 (ish) when he got there, 4.9 (ish) when he left. He DID reside over just about triple the debt increase in 8 years. In today's terms, they spent just over $2 trillion more in 8 years than we've spent in 4. At the current rate, we will more than double the debt that existed in 2009 by the time Obama serves two terms. In today's terms, Reagan spent $7.23 trillion in 8 years, and we'll spend over $12 trillion.

The trick is the whole "triple, double" thing. Tripling the debt sounds worse than doubling it, but if your starting debt when you triple is only $1.7 trillion, but it's $10 trillion when you double it, it's easy to see how the actual amount can be more significant than the total percentage increase.
 
To be fair, you obviously didn't read my post and just jumped at the chance to throw cons under the bus, as I very clearly referenced a comparison on the basis of inflation in my last sentence.

Also, to be fair, Redress initially referenced Reagan tripling the debt, and my retort was in response to that relatively ambiguous view of debt increase.

Why is it, Pete, that all you do is post insulting generalizations and ignorant assumptions about the right, while contributing nothing and failing to respond to sound points made by those you disagree with?

It is insulting to call out people who forget inflation in their partisan bickering? That you as one of the few managed to sneak in inflation compensation at the end, does not mean that my comments are invalid by any means.
 
Yes, but you forgot to factor in a much higher tax income and the lack of 2 wars, plus a financial melt down not seen since the 1930s and so on. Just saying, it is not that easy to make comparisons without factoring in all the many differences that attributed to each President's "raise" in the debt and even deficit and it is especially difficult considering the partisan "fog of war" both sides like to throw in... like the conservatives holding Reagan up as some sort of God despite his many many flaws (he was a tax raiser!!!!).

I don't worship any politican. So there's that.

As for the rest of it...We were just talking the flat increase as it related to the original total. I'm not blaming any specific policy or program or any specific person for the increase. I'm saying it is wholly unacceptable and must be slowed, and then stopped for the sake of our credit rating, our economy, and our future obligations. The spending is excessive regardless of the reasoning behind it.
 
It is insulting to call out people who forget inflation in their partisan bickering? That you as one of the few managed to sneak in inflation compensation at the end, does not mean that my comments are invalid by any means.

It's not only insulting, it's counterproductive and inaccurate. There are plenty of cons (and libs, and socialists and everything else) on this board who support their points with facts. To isolate one group because you dislike them is nothing short of counterproductive.
 
it's nonsensical to look at what is clearly stimulus-related spending and then project that it is intended to continue indefinitely

obama includes much of stimulus spending in his baseline

Stimulus Proposals in the President's Budget | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

When the economy recovers spending will naturally abate and revenues will naturally rise

we were told unemployment would be 6.5% by now

Romer and Bernstein on stimulus - NYTimes.com

there is no reason to have a panic attack based on irrational projections

no panic, but at 61.6T under and sinking 5.3 further each year, if something isn't done imminently to fundamentally restructure our budgets, then our big 3 federal programs (as well as state pensions) will simply not be there as we expect them for our next generation

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com
 
The spending is excessive regardless of the reasoning behind it.

That may be, and I agree, but the lack of income due to corporations and the top 1% of the population avoiding paying their fair share is just as big a problem if not bigger. The lack of income has contributed hugely to the deficit and debt along with "excessive spending". Sure the right can complain that many American's dont pay any income taxes and they do have a point, but only up to a very small point. The poor are struggling as it is because of the economy and pushing taxes on them just so the right can "feel better" will doom the economy even more. Where as pushing for more income from the very people that CAN afford it, is the way forward at least in the short term so that the economy and the budget can get fixed. But that is off the table as it stands now.

Now the problem with excessive spending is that much of it is related to the private sector where competition is non-existent and has pressed prices up for everyone, and yet no one is willing to address this at all in the US congress. Add to that the out right corruption in government procurement, especially military (400 dollar toilet seats stuff) and you have a bloated ineffective government that does not produce enough revenue because they are giving out money and favours by the bushel load (yes that is in reference to Iraq).
 
He refuses to accept that this is a WAR and there is an ENEMY which must be vanquished.

vote obama, 2012!

this is a WAR!

there is an ENEMY!

etc

LOL!
 
It was 1.7 (ish) when he got there, 4.9 (ish) when he left. He DID reside over just about triple the debt increase in 8 years. In today's terms, they spent just over $2 trillion more in 8 years than we've spent in 4. At the current rate, we will more than double the debt that existed in 2009 by the time Obama serves two terms. In today's terms, Reagan spent $7.23 trillion in 8 years, and we'll spend over $12 trillion.

The trick is the whole "triple, double" thing. Tripling the debt sounds worse than doubling it, but if your starting debt when you triple is only $1.7 trillion, but it's $10 trillion when you double it, it's easy to see how the actual amount can be more significant than the total percentage increase.

There are a number of problems with your post here which indicate a lack of understanding.

1) you are assuming that nothing will change, when things always change. Saying "well, if nothing changes" is a stupid comment, since things always change. It shows you want to believe the worst instead of are looking for real information.

2) triple is an exact measure of what it is, a comparison of starting to ending amounts.

3) We have already discussed the role of inflation and such, and then you go right back to trying to ignore it since it is inconvenient to your argument.
 
I don't worship any politican. So there's that.

As for the rest of it...We were just talking the flat increase as it related to the original total. I'm not blaming any specific policy or program or any specific person for the increase. I'm saying it is wholly unacceptable and must be slowed, and then stopped for the sake of our credit rating, our economy, and our future obligations. The spending is excessive regardless of the reasoning behind it.

What do you think will be the effect on the economy of taking a large chunk out of it during the early portion of a recovery? Hint: look at GDP growth post stimulus compared to during the stimulus.
 
Indeed. Goddamn you conservatives. We of course are part of a dictatorship where you all had complete control and chose to delay this out of singularly your own choice.

...wait a second...

No, sorry, I got that wrong. We are a dictatorship, but we're a dictatorship under the Democratic Party, so the Republicans should've just did exactly what the Democrats wanted and dealt with it because we're not a representitive republic where people are elected by their constituents to push for their desires but rather are a dictatorship under teh Democratic Party. Silly me. Damn you conservatives! Damn you to hell for not doing exactly what the Democrats wanted.

...wait, no wait another second...

Oh that's right, we are a represnetitive republic. Both sides have one of the chambers of congress and one side also has the Presidency. Despite that, NEITHER side was able to actually fashion a bill that was able to get support from the other side until the past days. Both sides choices are the reason it took until the 11th hour for this to be done, not just one. But far be it for me to expect hyper partisans to pass up a chance to bash bash bash one sidedly for the sake of political points.

I agree with you 100%, but don't you see? Had Republicans agreed to a clean debt ceiling from the start instead of insisting on tying spending cuts to raising same we could have saved the public billions!

Now, I agree we need to get our fiscal house in order, but debt and deficit reduction could (and should) have been dealt with separate from raising the debt limit same as closing tax loopholes or reforming same along with reforming Social Security and Medicare. But instead of listening to the President who stated we could wait and work on reforming Social Security after raising the debt limit or that we already made cuts to Medicare in the health care reform law, pundits still sought to affix entitlement reform, tax reform and deficit reduction measures (spending cuts) to raising the debt limit. ALL SUCH ACTIONS WERE WRONG! WRONG TIME, WRONG VENUE TO SEEK REFORMS!! And look at what it cost the America in public currency and national prestige' abroad?
 
Last edited:
obama includes much of stimulus spending in his baseline

And your point?

we were told unemployment would be 6.5% by now

No, you weren't told that. That was an overly optimistic projection. The same projection estimated that unemployment would be under 8% even without stimulus.

no panic, but at 61.6T under and sinking 5.3 further each year, if something isn't done imminently to fundamentally restructure our budgets, then our big 3 federal programs (as well as state pensions) will simply not be there as we expect them for our next generation

We aren't running a $5 trillion+ deficit. I certainly agree that we need to start working on entitlement reform.
 
Last edited:
Cooperate with what exactly? This was a manufactured crisis by the right in order to hold the nation and its economy hostage. Do you cooperate with that or squash that sort of treason like a bug?

Obama made the wrong decision. He refuses to accept that this is a WAR and there is an ENEMY which must be vanquished.
It was a manufactured crisis by the right. Nobody can honestly say our debt isn't a big problem, but the right held a gun to all of our heads, exceeding the debt limit would not stop the spending, it would make borrowing more expensive for all of us. The right does this because they know the left cares more about our country will eventually say "uncle."

I think President Obama should have written an executive order to raise or eliminate the debt ceiling. Then the right can fight it in the courts or try to impeach him.
 
Back
Top Bottom