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

[Bern80]

They are two different issues, two different subjects.

We have no choice but to pay our debt.

We do have a choice about incurring more debt.

Correct on both. The difference is you seem to think it's the first that requires raising the debt ceiling when that is not the case.

Maybe this will help -

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE]The Debt Limit Explained - YouTube[/ame]

Gotta add this to it just because it's so mezmerising to watch; U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Correct on both. The difference is you seem to think it's the first that requires raising the debt ceiling when that is not the case.

Maybe this will help -

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE]The Debt Limit Explained - YouTube[/ame]

Gotta add this to it just because it's so mezmerising to watch; U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Usually, when rw's try so hard to change the subject, its because they find out just how wrong they are. Good for you for watching the video but if you want to discuss the meaning and ramifications of the debt clock, you might want to start a new thread because this thread is about debt limit. Different subject entirely.

 

[peach174]

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

No, not true.

What raises the debt is congress spending.

Much of what is spent must be spent but its true that debt is caused by congress voting to incur debt.

What seems to be so hard for people to grasp is that THAT is why its called DEBT.

 

[Bern80]

Maybe this will help -

The Debt Limit Explained - YouTube

Gotta add this to it just because it's so mezmerising to watch; U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Usually, when rw's try so hard to change the subject, its because they find out just how wrong they are. Good for you for watching the video but if you want to discuss the meaning and ramifications of the debt clock, you might want to start a new thread because this thread is about debt limit. Different subject entirely.

Actually no. Again your little video doesn't say anything most of us (yes, including me) don't already know. We know it's both congress and the Presidents fault. The only minor take away from it and where he seemed to leading is that we should basically just do away with the debt limit all together. I theory it's a good idea to have stop gap in place that prevents government form spending too much, but since it's so routinely ignored by both parties, there is no real point to its existence. Even if we did away with it, it doesn't change the fact that our government continues to spend more and more and more than it takes in every year. Despite it being routinely ignored at minimum it at least makes some people aware of the fact that our government is horribly fiscally irresponsible and is a measuring stick of that irresponsibility. The video is also wrong on the point that this is not comparable to a credit card, because it is. If a credit card was your only means for paying for anything and you have maxed out the card (essentially the analogy of not have the money to pay the highway crew) then you have to ask for that maximum to be raised in order to pay your obligations. The act of raising the limit does not raise your debt. We all get that. It's just that most of us are intellectually honest enough to get that it goes without saying that incresaing the debt limit leads to incresed debt.

 

[Redfish]

Congressman Bob receives campaign cash from a construction company.

Congressman Bob pushes a bill to build a bridge to nowhere so the construction company gets the contract.

The bridge to nowhere funding gets approved.

Six months later, the money for the bridge to nowhere must be given to the construction company. To do this, the government has to borrow money. This borrowing pushes the federal debt above the debt ceiling.

Congressman Bob throws a public hissy fit about raising the debt ceiling.

Theater for the rubes.

Next month, Congressman Bob brags to the rubes about the jobs he brought to the district with the bridge contract.

We're being had, folks.

wrong, congress cannot authorize and appropriate the money for the bridge unless it is in the current funding budget.

your example would be illegal.

The opposite is true.

I get that you're afraid to post facts but you could still look them up for your own education. And, the You Tube I posted is very simple and to the point.

Lets say that congress wants to have a new bridge built and it will cost 500 million. They cannot sign the construction contract until the money is appropriated and authorized i.e. set aside to pay the bill when it comes in.

look up "authorization" and "appropriation" bills, those words have precise meanings in govt fiscal jargon.

so your premise that new borrowing is needed when the bridge bill comes in is wrong, the funding must be set aside before the govt signs the contract.

some very expensive and lengthy projects, like aircraft carriers, use multi year funding whereby part of the project is funded each fiscal year, but the catch is that the project stops if continued funding is not authorized and appropriated each year.

raising the debt limt is necessary to fund new govt programs that did not have money appropriated for them in prior years.

the debt goes up when the debt ceiling is increased--------you do know what the word "ceiling' means in terms of spending don't you?

 

[Redfish]

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.

No, not true.

What raises the debt is congress spending.

Much of what is spent must be spent but its true that debt is caused by congress voting to incur debt.

What seems to be so hard for people to grasp is that THAT is why its called DEBT.

you are only correct if the govt has zero revenue and all spending is paid for by borrowing. the debt is only incurred to cover the shortfall between revenue and spending.

 

[peach174]

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.

No, not true.

What raises the debt is congress spending.

Much of what is spent must be spent but its true that debt is caused by congress voting to incur debt.

What seems to be so hard for people to grasp is that THAT is why its called DEBT.

It is not a must be spent.
There are many things that we can do without.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What happens when you ask your cc company for a higher credit limit and they give it to you?

You choose whether or not to spend more but that is not the same as the amount you already spent and OWE the cc company.

The debt limit is to pay for the money we already spent ON CREDIT.

No, it is not. It is to pay for new spending. the already spent money is already spent, we are paying interest on the money already borrowed and spent.

damn, but you libs are thick headed.

You're playing with semantics again. 40% of Medicare is paid for out of the general fund.

1/3rd of that is borrowed. That is not 'new' spending. That is ongoing spending that partially funds a government program that is already in place.

If Congress wants to stay under the current debt ceiling they have to legislate major reductions to current government programs,

from Medicare to the military.

So far, NO ONE here has proposed a credible, detailed plan as to how you cut 1/3rd of the current government spending, put in place by past legislation.

NO ONE.

 

[peach174]

This is the correct you tube video you should look at.
You have to cut things back.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no21PgET3Co]The United States Debt Limit Explained - (CR) Heritage Foundation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

As for any of you who are claiming that repealing Obamacare is what needs to be done regarding the deficit,

remember,

when you repeal Obamacare, you also repeal the taxes that are funding Obamacare,

so your net impact on the deficit is minimal, if at all.

 

[Redfish]

You choose whether or not to spend more but that is not the same as the amount you already spent and OWE the cc company.

The debt limit is to pay for the money we already spent ON CREDIT.

No, it is not. It is to pay for new spending. the already spent money is already spent, we are paying interest on the money already borrowed and spent.

damn, but you libs are thick headed.

You're playing with semantics again. 40% of Medicare is paid for out of the general fund.

1/3rd of that is borrowed. That is not 'new' spending. That is ongoing spending that partially funds a government program that is already in place.

If Congress wants to stay under the current debt ceiling they have to legislate major reductions to current government programs,

from Medicare to the military.

So far, NO ONE here has proposed a credible, detailed plan as to how you cut 1/3rd of the current government spending, put in place by past legislation.

NO ONE.

I did, a couple of days ago. Cut all govt programs by 1/3. all of them, every one. or they could be selective and do away with unnecessary spending, someone earlier gave 50 examples to spending that could be stopped.

its really simple, the country cannot continue to spend a trillion a year more than it takes in. it has to stop or we are fiscally ruined.

 

[Redfish]

As for any of you who are claiming that repealing Obamacare is what needs to be done regarding the deficit,

remember,

when you repeal Obamacare, you also repeal the taxes that are funding Obamacare,

so your net impact on the deficit is minimal, if at all.

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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

wrong, congress cannot authorize and appropriate the money for the bridge unless it is in the current funding budget.

your example would be illegal.

The opposite is true.

I get that you're afraid to post facts but you could still look them up for your own education. And, the You Tube I posted is very simple and to the point.

Lets say that congress wants to have a new bridge built and it will cost 500 million. They cannot sign the construction contract until the money is appropriated and authorized i.e. set aside to pay the bill when it comes in.

look up "authorization" and "appropriation" bills, those words have precise meanings in govt fiscal jargon.

so your premise that new borrowing is needed when the bridge bill comes in is wrong, the funding must be set aside before the govt signs the contract.

some very expensive and lengthy projects, like aircraft carriers, use multi year funding whereby part of the project is funded each fiscal year, but the catch is that the project stops if continued funding is not authorized and appropriated each year.

raising the debt limt is necessary to fund new govt programs that did not have money appropriated for them in prior years.

the debt goes up when the debt ceiling is increased--------you do know what the word "ceiling' means in terms of spending don't you?

First, the bridge description wasn't mine and it does a very good job of explaining the constitutional law. You might also give some thought to the pubs wanting money for more tanks even though we don't use the ones we have.

I'm tired of explaining and then re-explaining. Watch the video or don't. If you want to know the facts, look them up but, I suspect we'll just through this same thing the next time congress wants to rule by tantrum and/or blackmail. And, next time, the same rw's won't have a frikken clue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it is not. It is to pay for new spending. the already spent money is already spent, we are paying interest on the money already borrowed and spent.

damn, but you libs are thick headed.

You're playing with semantics again. 40% of Medicare is paid for out of the general fund.

1/3rd of that is borrowed. That is not 'new' spending. That is ongoing spending that partially funds a government program that is already in place.

If Congress wants to stay under the current debt ceiling they have to legislate major reductions to current government programs,

from Medicare to the military.

So far, NO ONE here has proposed a credible, detailed plan as to how you cut 1/3rd of the current government spending, put in place by past legislation.

NO ONE.

I did, a couple of days ago. Cut all govt programs by 1/3. all of them, every one. or they could be selective and do away with unnecessary spending, someone earlier gave 50 examples to spending that could be stopped.

its really simple, the country cannot continue to spend a trillion a year more than it takes in. it has to stop or we are fiscally ruined.

Who are the real-life real-world legislators proposing what you're proposing?

You know that not one Republican would vote for a 1/3rd cut in defense, and not one Democrat would vote for a 1/3rd cut in Medicare/Medicaid.

And your plan doesn't work right out of the gate because we can't default on the interest payment on our debt (unless we've truly gone insane)

so that 400 billion dollar a year program can't be cut by a third, so every other program would have to be cut by that much more.

This is all idle fantasy by a bunch of extremist real world deniers, like you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As for any of you who are claiming that repealing Obamacare is what needs to be done regarding the deficit,

remember,

when you repeal Obamacare, you also repeal the taxes that are funding Obamacare,

so your net impact on the deficit is minimal, if at all.

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.

Lucky for us, what you say is not true and even if it were, its not possible for the Rs to repeal OR defund. Its just another lie from the Rs.

 

[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?

 

[Redfish]

You're playing with semantics again. 40% of Medicare is paid for out of the general fund.

1/3rd of that is borrowed. That is not 'new' spending. That is ongoing spending that partially funds a government program that is already in place.

If Congress wants to stay under the current debt ceiling they have to legislate major reductions to current government programs,

from Medicare to the military.

So far, NO ONE here has proposed a credible, detailed plan as to how you cut 1/3rd of the current government spending, put in place by past legislation.

NO ONE.

I did, a couple of days ago. Cut all govt programs by 1/3. all of them, every one. or they could be selective and do away with unnecessary spending, someone earlier gave 50 examples to spending that could be stopped.

its really simple, the country cannot continue to spend a trillion a year more than it takes in. it has to stop or we are fiscally ruined.

Who are the real-life real-world legislators proposing what you're proposing?

You know that not one Republican would vote for a 1/3rd cut in defense, and not one Democrat would vote for a 1/3rd cut in Medicare/Medicaid.

And your plan doesn't work right out of the gate because we can't default on the interest payment on our debt (unless we've truly gone insane)

so that 400 billion dollar a year program can't be cut by a third, so every other program would have to be cut by that much more.

This is all idle fantasy by a bunch of extremist real world deniers, like you.

you asked for a solution, I gave you one, just because no one in congress has the balls to do what is needed does not make it a bad solution.

you are right about the interest on the debt, it must be paid in full, so the cuts will have to come from everything else after the interest on the debt is paid.

we have gotten ourselves in a real mess, its going to hurt everyone to fix it. But since congress is there for life at very good salaries and benefits, they won't risk losing votes doing what is right. sad but true.