Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times.

[Markle]

Yes indeed. I never suggested that the US federal government can print money ad infinitum. There are budgetary constraints, but those limits are often misrepresented and pulled down way below where they actually are. Both Republican and Democrat politicians are guilty of pushing the false narrative that the government doesn't have enough money when they have more than enough. There are certain class interests that see any government involvement in society as a threat, because democracy represents the power of the populace. The people. Government is supposedly always "bad" and inept.

If our government funds projects that build our infrastructure, that only increases our GDP, allowing the government to expand its budget. Until we reach full employment, our productive maximum, hyperinflation is practically impossible. More, there are different options government power has to either completely stop inflation in its tracks or at least reduce it significantly. There's a lot of misinformation and fearmongering about the "national debt".

​

Actually, you did. Still lying!

ChristianMan:
"It's not really a debt. It's more of a ledger of how much money has been put into the economy since 1789. It can't do us any harm provided we continue producing and we haven't reached full employment."

 

[struth]

Not sure of the dates
Ronald Reagan — 18 Times
Thus, he repeatedly bumped up the debt ceiling so that the government kept paying its debts. Over the course of his term in office, the debt ceiling was raised a total of 18 times, from $935 billion to $2.8 trillion.

True, but all citizens must be willing to give up some government benefits so spending can go down.
Voters want their cake and eat it to. They do not want to lose any government benefits and to pay less taxes.

Reagan was a Conservative, and a leader....so he was willing and able to work across the party lines and get things done. Now a days the Demafascsit have control of the Democrat party and frankly are unwilling to do that.

 

[ElmerMudd]

To not increase the debt limit is like buying something on your credit card and then refuse to pay for it.

Credit card? LOL!
The government spends tax revenues and money raised by selling bonds, notes and bills.
If the bonds are already sold, why do we need to raise the debt limit?

If both parties approve a budget, those expenditures must be paid unless the budget is reduced.

Like passing a bill that reduces promised/projected spending.

Todd said, "If the bonds are already sold, why do we need to raise the debt limit?"
Todd you have to be kidding. The current bonds will not cover the debt. The rerason for increasing the debt limit is so the government can sell more bonds and raise more money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd said, "If the bonds are already sold, why do we need to raise the debt limit?"
Todd you have to be kidding. The current bonds will not cover the debt. The rerason for increasing the debt limit is so the government can sell more bonds and raise more money.

Todd you have to be kidding.

The current debt is bonds, notes and bills outstanding.

The current bonds will not cover the debt.

They are the debt.

The reason for increasing the debt limit is so the government can sell more bonds and raise more money.

Right, but you said it's like buying something on our credit card and not paying for it,
which is incorrect.

 

[Flash]

No but the Republicans cannot point their fingers at Democrats because both parties have continually raised the debt limit.

When the debt limit should be addressed is during budget approvals.

To not increase the debt limit is like buying something on your credit card and then refuse to pay for it.

If both parties approve a budget, those expenditures must be paid unless the budget is reduced.

Budgeting is the time to reduce debt. But neither party wants to be responsible for the effects of lower government spending on their constituents.

It seems like once you get elected to office there is no incentive to do the right thing and be fiscally responsible. Being fiscally responsible doesn't bring home the gravy. Besides, it is so easy to compromise with the big spenders rather than do the good fight.

 

[Smokin' OP]

History of the United States debt ceiling - Wikipedia​

 

[Nostra]

Tater just raised the debt ceiling over twice as much in a single day than the Democrats in Congress did for the entire 8 years Reagan was President.

 

[protectionist]

Reagan was the WORST, most corrupt, president in US history...............until, Trump was installed.

The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by numerous scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any president in American history.

Biden is the WORST, most corrupt president in US history.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Biden is the WORST, most corrupt president in US history.

Awwwwwww.................Teabaggers, just can't PROVE it.
A FOX guest, agreeing with the host, ISN'T proof.

 

[hadit]

Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times. Donald Trump raised the debt ceiling twice

Since when have the Republicans been hardliners on the debt ceiling.

The time to cut costs is during the budget negotiations.

If the US defaults, every American will suffer.

US Presidents Raised the Debt Ceiling 42 Times in Recent History — Here’s Who Raised It the Most

No topic has been hotter in mid-May 2023 than the debt ceiling, even though many people don't fully understand what it is. In a nutshell, the debt ceiling is a line in the sand regarding the amount...

finance.yahoo.com

Hitting the debt ceiling =/= default. There would still be plenty of revenue to service the interest on the debt. Congress would have to find other programs to cut. The fact that they immediately jump to Social Security is just a cynical ploy to scare seniors into supporting never ending, ever increasing spending.

 

[Markle]

Awwwwwww.................Teabaggers, just can't PROVE it.
A FOX guest, agreeing with the host, ISN'T proof.

 

[Smokin' OP]

WOW.

Viktor Mykolayovych Shokin (Ukrainian: Віктор Миколайович Шокін) is a former Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Having previously worked as an investigator for the Prosecutor General Office, he served as Prosecutor General for one year between 2015 and 2016.

Amid domestic and international pressure, he was removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016, a move welcomed by the European Union, the United States, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

Shokin's removal played a central role in the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory as it was falsely claimed that then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden sought to thwart an investigation into Burisma, a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden, but Obama administration officials, European diplomats, and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine say Shokin was removed because he failed to pursue Ukrainian politicians for corruption, and that they intervened before Biden did.


In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010–2012.

In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts".

Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and, according to Zlochevsky's allies, using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.

While visiting Kyiv in December 2015, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the Obama administration was prepared to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden later said: "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." Whether or not Shokin's successor was "solid" was never confirmed.

Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.


So..............Biden and others were withholding $$$, for NOT investigating corruption, and teabaggers are miffed?

Figures.

 

[Markle]

WOW.

Viktor Mykolayovych Shokin (Ukrainian: Віктор Миколайович Шокін) is a former Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Having previously worked as an investigator for the Prosecutor General Office, he served as Prosecutor General for one year between 2015 and 2016.

Amid domestic and international pressure, he was removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016, a move welcomed by the European Union, the United States, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.

Shokin's removal played a central role in the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory as it was falsely claimed that then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden sought to thwart an investigation into Burisma, a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden, but Obama administration officials, European diplomats, and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine say Shokin was removed because he failed to pursue Ukrainian politicians for corruption, and that they intervened before Biden did.


In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010–2012.

In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts".

Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and, according to Zlochevsky's allies, using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.

While visiting Kyiv in December 2015, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the Obama administration was prepared to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden later said: "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." Whether or not Shokin's successor was "solid" was never confirmed.

Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.


So..............Biden and others were withholding $$$, for NOT investigating corruption, and teabaggers are miffed?

Figures.

"Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a natural gas giant in Ukraine, in 2014. The company’s founder was under investigation by then-prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, who the U.S., United Kingdom and other Western governments argued had failed to rein in corruption in the country."

Hunter Biden defends taking position on Burisma board

Hunter Biden on Monday defended his decision to serve on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, but acknowledged he would not do it again after the position became a point of atta…

thehill.com

###

"It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians".

Fact check: Biden leveraged $1B in aid to Ukraine to oust corrupt prosecutor, not to help his son

Despite a Senate GOP investigation that found no wrongdoing by Joe Biden on foreign policy in Ukraine, claims to the contrary continue to circulate.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Smokin' OP]

"Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a natural gas giant in Ukraine, in 2014. The company’s founder was under investigation by then-prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, who the U.S., United Kingdom and other Western governments argued had failed to rein in corruption in the country."

Hunter Biden defends taking position on Burisma board

Hunter Biden on Monday defended his decision to serve on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, but acknowledged he would not do it again after the position became a point of atta…

thehill.com

###

"It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians".

Fact check: Biden leveraged $1B in aid to Ukraine to oust corrupt prosecutor, not to help his son

Despite a Senate GOP investigation that found no wrongdoing by Joe Biden on foreign policy in Ukraine, claims to the contrary continue to circulate.

www.usatoday.com

WELL..............There you go.
UNTIL............ANOTHER "bombshell" witness comes along.