Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 1

[NYcarbineer]

[
When you do your budget....do you spend the money BEFORE you've earned it? ...

Does this answer your question?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama would be well pleased if the debt ceiling was abolished altogether. Then he could more quickly spend us into irreversible bankruptcy...his plan from day one.

Obama is a goddamned Marxist!

Where and how is Obama able to appropriate and spend money?

 

[NYcarbineer]

obamacare needs to be repealed because it is bad law and the american people do not want it and can't afford it.

There would be tremendous savings and the debt situation would improve somewhat---obviously that is not the only thing that needs to be done.

That is not the topic. The topic is keeping under the current debt ceiling.

Less than 40% of Americans want Obamacare repealed. That is not 'the American people'.

Obama Care is part of the Debt.
By a two-to-one margin, 56% to 26%, voters want the president to delay implementation of the individual mandate.
The Republicans are listening to the majority of the people and they want Obama Care defunded for a year. We deserve a reprieval just like the Businesses are.

So you're claiming there were no taxes in Obamacare? lol, when were you born?

 

[Geaux4it]

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 1
WTF??

What a genius

-Geaux

Why do rw's believe that raising the debt ceiling increases the debt?

We've been here before but apparently, the rw's can't remember what they learned the last time.

The money has already been spent.

Raising the debt ceiling is our legal agreement to pay the debt that (ALL of congress) already borrowed.

Using the Visa analogy above ... When you applied for the Visa card, you did not incur debt but you did legally agree to pay any debt you incurred using the Visa card.

Who says we have to pay the debt? I thought all the bleeding hearts were behind those who were taken advantage of by evil banks that forced them to sign for home loans they can't afford. Libs applaud those who walk away and blame it on Bush.

OK- Let's not raise the debt limit and blame it on Bush

I'm down

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Yeah, nobody has to pay for this stuff

-Geaux

 

[velvtacheeze]

Raising the debt ceiling was not controversial when Dumbya was President. Not sure why it's so controversial now.

Like Medicare D's creation during unified GOP rule, just file this under "Things that the GOP can do when they hold the White House, but Democrats cannot".

The GOP is a joke.

 

[deltex1]

Isn't raising the debt required because we overspent the previous budget or is it because we have no budget and have run out of money to pay our obligations? Either way its stupid but no one will take the time to fix it.

 

[Geaux4it]

Isn't raising the debt required because we overspent the previous budget or is it because we have no budget and have run out of money to pay our obligations? Either way its stupid but no one will take the time to fix it.

We don't pay the debt just like the deadbeats that voted for Obama.

We stop it now

-Geaux

 

[Bern80]

A plan that is not doable is not a solution. It's a fantasy. I told you that the last time you ran in this nonsense.

No one here has a workable plan to cope with freezing the debt ceiling where it currently is,

so reasonable people should stop talking about it as if there is a workable plan.

I actually think I have a fairly simple solution though again there is probably no politician will to do it. Basically it involves slashing government spending of course. Not getting too specific, but our military spending could be cut in half or more along with plenty of other things. Coupled with converting to a flat tax of somwhere between 15-20% on all income no matter how derived and elimination of all credits, deductions, loopholes, etc. I would bet the government would be taking in more money than it does now. increasing revenue that way and slashing spending we would be out of debt in no time. And keep in mind our debt doesn't have to be, nor should it be zero. Some debt is an okay and even good thing sometimes.

The only 'doable' thing at this point is do nothing, because Congress and the presidency are in a mutual death grip of paralysis.

btw, Paul Ryan never proposed a budget that could have avoided debt ceiling increases,

why are these radical Republicans now insisting that the Democrats sign onto something that even the GOP effectively acknowledged was impossible?

Because it's politics and none of them will stop the politics long enough to do what's right. Don't get me wrong, I am nearly as annoyed for Republicans not doing what Republicans should be doing as I am with Democrats for coming up with just stupid policy. The budget is just the begining of the reforms that need to take place for any of this to work. Term limits, campaign reform, etc., etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2000, with the budget balanced and 4% unemployment,

taxes were 20% of GDP.

Currently, with a massive deficit and 7+% unemployment,

taxes are under 16% of GDP.

As it relates to the deficit/debt, if current taxes were 20% of GDP as they were in the prosperous year of 2000,

the current deficit would be cut in half.

 

[Geaux4it]

Wow- Not long ago he campaigned against raising the debt limit

What a hypocrite MF

-Geaux

[youtube]ydZTHPkOnvE[/youtube]

 

[Missouri_Mike]

In 2000, with the budget balanced and 4% unemployment,

taxes were 20% of GDP.

Currently, with a massive deficit and 7+% unemployment,

taxes are under 16% of GDP.

As it relates to the deficit/debt, if current taxes were 20% of GDP as they were in the prosperous year of 2000,

the current deficit would be cut in half.

You seem to be severely lacking in math.

Taxes were 20% of GDP when we actually had GDP and more people paying in because they had jobs. Now that the numbers of unemployed have increased and business is down is it not rational to understand the the taxes to GDP ratio has dropped?

Current taxes as a ratio of GDP can't possibly reach 20% when the economy is sucking. This is the direct result of obie's policies. More (actually less) healthcare but part time jobs, more people on the government dole, more spending, less production. You can't possibly maintain 20% when the people that actually make money and pay taxes can't do so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

With a trillion dollar annual deficit,

that averages out to about 82 billion a month added to the debt. Once you have to stop adding debt

you have to come up with 82 billion a month in spending cuts.

Which Republican who's opposing a debt ceiling freeze has laid out those cuts,

in detail?

When are you libs gonna learn this never works as a reasonable argument? It's generally always the same thing 'you say it's wrong, but a republican did it, so it actually okay'. WRONG. It's wrong no matter who does it. The fact that republicans haven't offered a real solution doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be addressed.

It's a reasonable argument unless you believe that the government should simply make 1/3 of its spending disappear literally overnight.

Which 80 billion a month in spending do you simply want to stop doing on the day the debt ceiling is hit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can call me a liar all you want, but if you can't prove it, you're just one more jabbering monkey.

The onus is on you to prove your claims.

He can't, but I think those who blindly support Obama whatever he does are those who share either Obama's total cluelessness when it comes to math, economics, or history or else his dishonesty, whichever it is.

"I want to be very clear," said President Barack Obama on July 18, 2009, in a weekly address to the nation. "I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade."

He said it again at a Town Hall in Shaker Height, Ohio, five days later: "And I mean it," and again before a joint session of Congress two months later -- "period."

So, perhaps now the president can explain why the new report by the Congressional Budget Office said his national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion "over the next decade" rather than the $940 billion he said it would cost.
Obamacare Won?t Add a Dime to Deficit ? it Will Add $1.76 Trillion

And when you figure that every dollar in taxes is a dollar pulled out of the economy along with its multipling effect when it is left there, and that we only receive back about 30 cents on the dollar from the government--the rest is swallowed up by the huge government bureacracy--I think we wouldn't miss those tax revenues if Obamacare went into the rubbish bin where it belongs.

Instead of citing a crackpot editorial from 2012, why don't we just look at the CBO from 2013?

Repealing the Affordable Care Act Would Drive Up Federal Deficit, CBO Says


On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said the federal deficit could jump by at least $109 billion over 10 years if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, The Hill's "Floor Action Blog" reports.

In a letter to House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Elmendorf said the projected deficit increase would stem from the elimination of the law's taxes, fees and spending cuts (Viebeck, "Floor Action Blog," The Hill, 5/15).

The warning came one day before the House is expected to vote on a bill (HR 45) -- sponsored by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) -- that would fully eliminate the ACA (Baker, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 5/16). Some estimates peg the vote as the 37th time that congressional Republicans will try to repeal, defund or dismantle the law (California Healthline, 5/15).

Repealing the Affordable Care Act Would Drive Up Federal Deficit, CBO Says - California Healthline

 

[Bern80]

In 2000, with the budget balanced and 4% unemployment,

taxes were 20% of GDP.

Currently, with a massive deficit and 7+% unemployment,

taxes are under 16% of GDP.

As it relates to the deficit/debt, if current taxes were 20% of GDP as they were in the prosperous year of 2000,

the current deficit would be cut in half.

That implies causality though. That implies that we, the taxpayers, are responsible for the debt and deficit. We're not. Such and implication is again simply an excuse that allows government to avoid making difficult decisions about the budget.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The onus is on you to prove your claims.

He can't, but I think those who blindly support Obama whatever he does are those who share either Obama's total cluelessness when it comes to math, economics, or history or else his dishonesty, whichever it is.

"I want to be very clear," said President Barack Obama on July 18, 2009, in a weekly address to the nation. "I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade."

He said it again at a Town Hall in Shaker Height, Ohio, five days later: "And I mean it," and again before a joint session of Congress two months later -- "period."

So, perhaps now the president can explain why the new report by the Congressional Budget Office said his national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion "over the next decade" rather than the $940 billion he said it would cost.
Obamacare Won?t Add a Dime to Deficit ? it Will Add $1.76 Trillion

And when you figure that every dollar in taxes is a dollar pulled out of the economy along with its multipling effect when it is left there, and that we only receive back about 30 cents on the dollar from the government--the rest is swallowed up by the huge government bureacracy--I think we wouldn't miss those tax revenues if Obamacare went into the rubbish bin where it belongs.

Instead of citing a crackpot editorial from 2012, why don't we just look at the CBO from 2013?

Repealing the Affordable Care Act Would Drive Up Federal Deficit, CBO Says


On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said the federal deficit could jump by at least $109 billion over 10 years if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, The Hill's "Floor Action Blog" reports.

In a letter to House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Elmendorf said the projected deficit increase would stem from the elimination of the law's taxes, fees and spending cuts (Viebeck, "Floor Action Blog," The Hill, 5/15).

The warning came one day before the House is expected to vote on a bill (HR 45) -- sponsored by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) -- that would fully eliminate the ACA (Baker, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 5/16). Some estimates peg the vote as the 37th time that congressional Republicans will try to repeal, defund or dismantle the law (California Healthline, 5/15).

Repealing the Affordable Care Act Would Drive Up Federal Deficit, CBO Says - California Healthline

You counter with a more recent crackpot editorial.

 

[Bern80]

With a trillion dollar annual deficit,

that averages out to about 82 billion a month added to the debt. Once you have to stop adding debt

you have to come up with 82 billion a month in spending cuts.

Which Republican who's opposing a debt ceiling freeze has laid out those cuts,

in detail?

When are you libs gonna learn this never works as a reasonable argument? It's generally always the same thing 'you say it's wrong, but a republican did it, so it actually okay'. WRONG. It's wrong no matter who does it. The fact that republicans haven't offered a real solution doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be addressed.

It's a reasonable argument unless you believe that the government should simply make 1/3 of its spending disappear literally overnight.

Which 80 billion a month in spending do you simply want to stop doing on the day the debt ceiling is hit?

I can think of lot of things. 80 billion isn't that much these days. Close a handful of overseas military bases for starters. Get rid of the department of education, etc. But let's get real. If it were me I'd be willing to compromise. I'd be willing to raise the debt ceiling if the other side can come up with a plan that shows some real impact on spending cuts and debt/deficit reduction.

 

[Foxfyre]

When are you libs gonna learn this never works as a reasonable argument? It's generally always the same thing 'you say it's wrong, but a republican did it, so it actually okay'. WRONG. It's wrong no matter who does it. The fact that republicans haven't offered a real solution doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be addressed.

It's a reasonable argument unless you believe that the government should simply make 1/3 of its spending disappear literally overnight.

Which 80 billion a month in spending do you simply want to stop doing on the day the debt ceiling is hit?

I can think of lot of things. 80 billion isn't that much these days. Close a handful of overseas military bases for starters. Get rid of the department of education, etc. But let's get real. If it were me I'd be willing to compromise. I'd be willing to raise the debt ceiling if the other side can come up with a plan that shows some real impact on spending cuts and debt/deficit reduction.

80 billion isn't that much these days? It is that kind of thinking that has lulled us into complacency when the national debt soars into the mega trillions and America just shrugs it off.

On average, how many American tax payers does it take to pay $1 billion into the federal treasury? At roughly $7,000 or so average federal payroll taxes paid per household, it takes all the taxes paid by roughly 150,000 American households or 375,000 Americans to equal $1 billion in revenues. If you do the math, 12 million American households paying the average in federal payroll taxes will pay in $80 billion to the U.S. treasury each year. That is roughly 10% of all American households and about half of all American households are paying little or nothing in federal payroll taxes so it represents 20% of taxpaying families.

If the economy was booming, and we were at full employment, just under 50% of our population would be employed. And we currently have the largest number of would-be workers out of work now than we have seen any time since the Great Depression.

$80 billion is a great deal of money.

It is a an enormous amount of money when it is tacked onto an already huge debt.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Increasing the right of America to "borrow" does NOT raise the debt until the authority to borrow more is acted upon.

Sadly, the debt limit is raised whenever there is already present an intention to act on it.

So, the President's quibble and sophistry aside, the PRACTICAL fact of the matter is:

raising the debt limit DOES kind of yield increased debt.

No, it does not "kind of" raise the debt.

What raises the debt is congress borrowing money.

The president has no choice. The Constitution requires that he agree to pay what we owe.

Really, its not complicated.

What raises the debt is congress spending what it does not have.

Correct. And raising the debt limit gives them the authority to borrow lots more of what we don't have. Then they fucking spend it.

Ol' Ludds got one thing right.

It really isn't hard.

What's evidently hard for some folks is to admit reality.

Psst. Libs: they don't raise the debt limit until they want to borrow and spend more.

 

[Redfish]

lets say I have a visa card with a $5000 limit. I currently owe visa $5000. I have maxed out my credit limit.

I want a new computer which costs $1500. I go to Visa and ask them to raise my "credit limit". They agree, I buy the computer for $1500 and put it on my Visa card.

Now, I owe Visa $6500. My debt is increased by the amount that I increased my debt ceiling.

This is a simple example to explain why Obama was full of shit when he made the statement that raising the debt ceiling does not raise the debt.

Hope you libs get it now--------but I don't count on it.