• 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!

US debt jumps a record $328 Billion

I was making fun of your error. See my first post: Will this be counted against last year's deficit?

Yes, this isn't new spending. It is paying bills and meeting obligations, that were accrued over the last year.

The latest debt ceiling debate can be boiled down to this.

Congress approved spending - the spending they approved caused us to hit the debt ceiling.

The President asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling so bills could be paid

Congress said ' We will raise it, but only if you make budget reductions in next year's budget'

The President said 'No - raise the debt ceiling - then we will negotiate next years budget'

Congress ended up raising the debt ceiling. Budget talks are underway.

If you are for spending cuts (and you should be) now is the time to fight for them. Not only now, but next year, and every year into the foreseeable future. The Feds have to work towards a balanced budget and then they need to keep working in order to have surpluses. It will not be until this happens that the debt ceiling will be avoided. All during the time it takse to balance the budget the U.S. will keep hitting the debt ceiling. Regardless of which party holds power in the House and which party holds power in the WhiteHouse, the debt ceiling will have to be raised each time. Part of fiscal responsibility is paying your bills. The other is managing your money in a way that you will stop spending more than you are taking in.

The Federal Government has to do both of these things for the next number of years, regardless of the party in power.
 
How is that of any consequence to my point? Including the input costs to various forms of intellectual property, and then applying it throughout the life of the data set does not change anything.

You seem confused.

I am confused. Largely because I am a simple guy, and when we get in to the weeds, I need to be helped along a bit, sorry for that.

But, that is due a lot, to trying to use common sense with this sort of thing. IOW, if current majorities say that things are doing better as a relation to GDP, but you have a change in how GDP is calculated, then to me common sense says that nothing is as it seems, ya know?

Part of the problem in this, and it isn't necessarily a current administration invention, or problem, but part of the problem is that many of these indices have been manipulated over time to make each concurring administration look better, and have cover for real numbers not being favorable...So, maybe it is just me, but I am highly skeptical of anything at this point.
 
Congress approved spending - the spending they approved caused us to hit the debt ceiling.

The President asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling so bills could be paid

Congress said ' We will raise it, but only if you make budget reductions in next year's budget'

The President said 'No - raise the debt ceiling - then we will negotiate next years budget'...

Think about that exchange for a second....I think it perfectly highlights the problem right now in DC...What I see is a house caving to majority wishes, then being brow beaten when they don't, and ultimately blamed when things blow up....It is a no win situation that the minority is in, when the real blame should be the bullies causing the problem currently.
 
U.S. debt jumped a record $328 billion on Thursday, the first day the federal government was able to borrow money under the deal President Obama and Congress sealed this week.

The debt now equals $17.075 trillion, according to figures the Treasury Department posted online on Friday.


Read more: U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter




LOL. This is what Obama and the Dems were holding out for. Nothing they did will make it any better either, only worse. But the people that are sick of this kind of nonsense are "Stupid", "Lunatics", "hostage takers" and a host of other silly terms designed to hide the problems the government is in. LOL.

Most people do not care. As long as they can lead their normal life, watch their TV, go to work and come home, what Washington does is just what Washington does. That is unless you're a political junkie. I would wager if you asked all American's how much debt the U.S. have, half probably wouldn't know that the U.S. in in debt.

The debt is not a hot button issue, stuff like abortion, immigration, gay rights etc, stuff like this become hot button issues, but none of them can destroy this country like the rising debt can. But those are the issues people pay attention to. Most are oblivious of the rising debt and its consequences.
 
Think about that exchange for a second....I think it perfectly highlights the problem right now in DC...What I see is a house caving to majority wishes, then being brow beaten when they don't, and ultimately blamed when things blow up....It is a no win situation that the minority is in, when the real blame should be the bullies causing the problem currently.

Except that if Congress passes a bill allowing expenditures to be made, they must also pass the bill that allows the expenditures to be paid for. Like they always have. It is the fact that they always have done this that gives the U.S. it's international reputation as a nation that always pays it's bills.
Congress simply cannot, nor should they even think about, threatening not to pay the bills.

Many congresses, both Democrat controlled and Republican controlled have tried this tact. It is just the wrong tact to take. It was wrong when Bush was President, it is wrong when Obama is President and it will be wrong for the next President. If you want to fight spending the time to do it is before you have spent not after.
 
Except that if Congress passes a bill allowing expenditures to be made, they must also pass the bill that allows the expenditures to be paid for.

And those bills should be paid for when they are passed, as is required by PAYGO rules, except someone keeps stating that they are all emergencies and excluded from PAYGO.

Hence why we overspend by 3-4% of GDP every year, which does nothing but depress potential GDP for years.
 
Cruz and the baggers made their choice to be destructive and so now it shouldn't be hard to blame this on them. Along with the Dems, the mainstream GOP and big business will be onboard with that blaming.

For extremists, what goes around comes around!

Typical revisionist history on your part. What goes around definitely does come around as the Obama incompetence is showing through more every day. In 2011 we had this same debate and promises were made to cut spending or that is what the American people were told. What we did however was only cut the growth in spending but still the debt went from the ceiling of 14.7 to 16.7 trillion and now exceeds 17 trillion. Now apparently liberals have no problem with a 17 trillion dollar debt because they cannot see it or in many cases feel it. Low interest rates because of that so called free money is disguising the problem as the debt service on the 17 trillion dollar debt remains at around 250 billion a year which normally would be double that with normal interest rates.

I don't understand people like you who support the new liberal normal, high unemployment, stagnant economic growth, and high debt. The European Utopia is here and let us all rejoice!
 
Except that if Congress passes a bill allowing expenditures to be made, they must also pass the bill that allows the expenditures to be paid for. Like they always have. It is the fact that they always have done this that gives the U.S. it's international reputation as a nation that always pays it's bills.
Congress simply cannot, nor should they even think about, threatening not to pay the bills.

Many congresses, both Democrat controlled and Republican controlled have tried this tact. It is just the wrong tact to take. It was wrong when Bush was President, it is wrong when Obama is President and it will be wrong for the next President. If you want to fight spending the time to do it is before you have spent not after.


That's a nice thought, and I appreciate what you are saying here, but, we don't have a system that is working the way it is mandated to do under the constitution anymore. What we have is a heavy handed majority pushing anyone in their way around, and getting what they want under threat of bully tactics.

You are correct in that, the way it is supposed to work is that all spending bills originate in the House, but think about it...Where did this last "crisis" ultimately come from? Did the house originate what was just passed to overt the shutdown? OR, did Harry Reid, and the Senate majority, along with progressive, establishment repubs brow beat the house into accepting their demands?

It is upside down right now!
 
That's a nice thought, and I appreciate what you are saying here, but, we don't have a system that is working the way it is mandated to do under the constitution anymore. What we have is a heavy handed majority pushing anyone in their way around, and getting what they want under threat of bully tactics.

You are correct in that, the way it is supposed to work is that all spending bills originate in the House, but think about it...Where did this last "crisis" ultimately come from? Did the house originate what was just passed to overt the shutdown? OR, did Harry Reid, and the Senate majority, along with progressive, establishment repubs brow beat the house into accepting their demands?

It is upside down right now!

Only bills for raising revenue have to originate in the house. The real problem is that congress just ignores the law. They ignore the debt limit, the budget act which requires a budget, spending restraints in all number of bills. How many laws does the govt have to pass to require or encourage fiscal responsibility? I guess we just need a balanced budget amendment and debt limit in the constitution since they wont do it themselves. Or vote everyone out of course. Or give up and seceed.
 
Only bills for raising revenue have to originate in the house. The real problem is that congress just ignores the law. They ignore the debt limit, the budget act which requires a budget, spending restraints in all number of bills. How many laws does the govt have to pass to require or encourage fiscal responsibility? I guess we just need a balanced budget amendment and debt limit in the constitution since they wont do it themselves. Or vote everyone out of course. Or give up and seceed.

I feel your frustration, but session is not necessary yet...We the people still have an option through our states....

The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic: Mark R. Levin: 9781451606270: Amazon.com: Books

"Levin proposes a series of constitutional amendments designed to curb the almost unlimited power of the federal government and return us to a federal system in which state governments have an actual voice in the governance of our country as originally intended; where nine “imperfect” lawyers in black robes cannot make “political and public policy decisions and impos[e] them on every corner of the nation and every part of society” with no accountability; and the power and authority of the legislative and executive branches are restrained in a way that curbs their ability to limit our liberty.

The key to Levin’s plan is Article V, which sets out the two ways in which the Constitution can be amended. The only method ever used in our history is the first: passage of an amendment by two thirds of both houses of Congress and approval by three quarters of the states. Levin proposes employing the second method: having Congress call a constitutional convention upon application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states."

Amendments for Liberty | National Review Online
 
That's a nice thought, and I appreciate what you are saying here, but, we don't have a system that is working the way it is mandated to do under the constitution anymore. What we have is a heavy handed majority pushing anyone in their way around, and getting what they want under threat of bully tactics.

You are correct in that, the way it is supposed to work is that all spending bills originate in the House, but think about it...Where did this last "crisis" ultimately come from? Did the house originate what was just passed to overt the shutdown? OR, did Harry Reid, and the Senate majority, along with progressive, establishment repubs brow beat the house into accepting their demands?

It is upside down right now!

The last crisis came from House Republicans.
 
The last crisis came from House Republicans.

That is your opinion, mine differs but then mine is based upon civics and the understanding of leadership. The House did their job and Obama refused to negotiate and that is what shutdown the govt, basic civics 101. The qualities of leadership encompasses bringing the two opposite sides together and not giving campaign speeches demonizing the other side. There is no reason that ACA shouldn't be delayed for a year and that Congress be subjected to the same law and forced onto the law they created. We apparently are going to see a delay in implementation which would have prevented the shutdown. Now the American people can see exactly what a disaster Obama's ACA is
 
That is your opinion, mine differs but then mine is based upon civics and the understanding of leadership. The House did their job and Obama refused to negotiate and that is what shutdown the govt, basic civics 101. The qualities of leadership encompasses bringing the two opposite sides together and not giving campaign speeches demonizing the other side. There is no reason that ACA shouldn't be delayed for a year and that Congress be subjected to the same law and forced onto the law they created. We apparently are going to see a delay in implementation which would have prevented the shutdown. Now the American people can see exactly what a disaster Obama's ACA is

Meanwhile, in reality land,
1) the Democrats agreed to the GOP's spending levels months ago. The GOP went back on their deal.
2) The GOP did nothing but demonize.
3) Congress is not exempt. They must participate in the exchange.
4) There actually is a good reason the individual mandate shouldn't be delayed: the mandate is a core provision to help offset the cost of all those people with pre-existing conditions signing up for insurance. Delaying it without also re-dumping everyone with a pre-existing condition would endanger the insurance industry.
 
Meanwhile, in reality land,
1) the Democrats agreed to the GOP's spending levels months ago. The GOP went back on their deal.
2) The GOP did nothing but demonize.
3) Congress is not exempt. They must participate in the exchange.
4) There actually is a good reason the individual mandate shouldn't be delayed: the mandate is a core provision to help offset the cost of all those people with pre-existing conditions signing up for insurance. Delaying it without also re-dumping everyone with a pre-existing condition would endanger the insurance industry.

Show me where the Senate agreed to the House budget.
 
And plenty werent. The Treasury had enough revenue coming in to pay for what was still authorized.

No, it did not. Not even close. Day to day revenue barely covers mandatory spending items. Discretionary spending would have to get axed almost entirely. This includes:

-Roughly 90% of the DOD budget. Yes, we'd have to cut 90% of our military spending.
-NASA. All of it.
-Air Traffic Control
-The EPA
-Veterans affairs

And so on. None of these programs would function.
 
No, it did not. Not even close. Day to day revenue barely covers mandatory spending items. Discretionary spending would have to get axed almost entirely. This includes:

-Roughly 90% of the DOD budget. Yes, we'd have to cut 90% of our military spending.
-NASA. All of it.
-Air Traffic Control
-The EPA
-Veterans affairs

And so on. None of these programs would function.


The big two mandatory spending programs (Social Secuirty and Medicare) already have dedicated revenue streams that fund them. Most other revenue streams would go to discretionary spending.

The only mandatory spending that doesn't have a tax directly dedicated to it's funding is the service of the national debt... and if you feel some angst about that cost coming out of discretionary funding then WAKE THE F*CK UP and join us in the real world.
 
Meanwhile, in reality land,
1) the Democrats agreed to the GOP's spending levels months ago. The GOP went back on their deal.
2) The GOP did nothing but demonize.
3) Congress is not exempt. They must participate in the exchange.
4) There actually is a good reason the individual mandate shouldn't be delayed: the mandate is a core provision to help offset the cost of all those people with pre-existing conditions signing up for insurance. Delaying it without also re-dumping everyone with a pre-existing condition would endanger the insurance industry.

If there was a spending bill approved months ago then there wouldn't have been a shutdown. None of this negates the lack of leadership on the part of Obama and Reid who as long as they remain in power will have a divisive govt.

The GOP spoke the will of the people since 38% approve of the ACA and the only power the GOP house has is to defund it. When that wasn't going to happen they proposed a one year exemption which looks like was the right thing to do.

Congress is not forced on ACA, they have a choice

Have you paid any attention to the role out and the website problems? The Federal Govt had three years to create a website to handle the issue and what we see today is typical govt. inefficiencies so imagine the implementation if it is this difficult to role out? Apparently the cost of failure isn't a problem for liberals.

You want badly to believe what Obama tells you yet have not offered one economic prediction or policy that has done exactly what it was promised to do. I grew up a Democrat but apparently not today's Democrat because I don't understand how people like you can continue to support this incompetence?
 
No, it did not. Not even close. Day to day revenue barely covers mandatory spending items. Discretionary spending would have to get axed almost entirely. This includes:

-Roughly 90% of the DOD budget. Yes, we'd have to cut 90% of our military spending.
-NASA. All of it.
-Air Traffic Control
-The EPA
-Veterans affairs

And so on. None of these programs would function.

So let me see if I have this right, you believe the 680 billion dollar expense budget is payable immediately and not monthly? You buy what this administration tells you and ignores reality. That doesn't help your credibility. There is plenty of money coming in monthly to pay mandatory spending which in my book is debt service, SS, Medicare, VA benefits, and military salaries. The rest should be shoveled back to the states where they belong.
 
On a related note, take a look at the CBO predictions for the next 11 years:

2012
Mandatory - $2,031b
Discretionary - $1,285b
Net Interest - $220b

2023
Mandatory - $3,617b (+78%)
Discretionary - $1,415b (+10%)
Net Interest - $823b (+274%)


They have US deficit in 2013 running about $850 billion, but their assumption is that discretionary spending will only grow at 1% annually rate. So anyone hear believe that congress will only grow discretionary spending by 1% annually? Yeah, me either. One this is for sure, that debt is going to kill us.
 
I stand by it. Had the recession not hit, and everything else being equal, the budget would have balanced in fy2008.

Well, you are not in a position to offer such expertise; it's subjective conjecture on your part.

The recession did hit! No need to regulate private mortgage securitization.
 
Back
Top Bottom