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

[Foxfyre]

If the government would just stick to paying what it owes, we would still be in a world of hurt but we could start thinking about the light at the end of the tunnel. But when is the last time you saw the U.S. government do that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Discovercard sent me a letter once telling me my credit limit had been increased. That was years ago. I have never been near that credit limit.

 

[Rozman]

Raising the debt ceiling is not a spending program, therefore it cannot itself add to the debt.

We seem to have to raise the debt ceiling every year.
This is debt,money already spent that we have to make good on.
And every year it needs to be raised again.
Which seems to me that we have spent more then the year before.

So how can we be that we have not added to the debt?

Am I wrong here?

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

Here's where you are making your mistake: you are attempting to use logic with liberals.

liberals are so much in the mud with Barry that they have lost all sense of reason. their boy is incapable of "misspeak". After all, he IS Barry, don't you know.

 

[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.

Discovercard sent me a letter once telling me my credit limit had been increased. That was years ago. I have never been near that credit limit.

so you didn't need the higher credit limit, why does obama need one if he is not going to spend up to it?

 

[zeke]

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.

Oh please......you were so close to understanding. Lets carry your little scenario out to the logical extension that rethugs in Congress use.

So you called VISA, asked them to raise your card limit so that you could buy your computer..and VISA does that and you do buy your computer....then you call VISA up and tell them you won't be sending them your payments on your VISA, because VISA raised your debt limit.

You must be a republican when you ask for more money on credit then refuse to pay the bill you ran up.

Are all rethugs dead beats now a days? Or does it just seem like that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama may be the dumbest **** to ever hold political office in the USA

 

[jon_berzerk]

Obama may be the dumbest **** to ever hold political office in the USA

that is a hard one to guess

there are so many

like the guy who fears Guam may tip over

for example

 

[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.

Oh please......you were so close to understanding. Lets carry your little scenario out to the logical extension that rethugs in Congress use.

So you called VISA, asked them to raise your card limit so that you could buy your computer..and VISA does that and you do buy your computer....then you call VISA up and tell them you won't be sending them your payments on your VISA, because VISA raised your debt limit.

You must be a republican when you ask for more money on credit then refuse to pay the bill you ran up.

Are all rethugs dead beats now a days? Or does it just seem like that?

the bill passed in the house funds our debt obligations 100%, so no one is saying we won't pay our bills

but to your example, what would Visa say if you told them you were only going to pay the interest on the debt and never planned to pay anything on the principle? That is what our govt is telling our creditors.

second question, if the debt continues to rise, the interest on it will consume the entire national budget,,,, what then?

 

[zeke]

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.

Oh please......you were so close to understanding. Lets carry your little scenario out to the logical extension that rethugs in Congress use.

So you called VISA, asked them to raise your card limit so that you could buy your computer..and VISA does that and you do buy your computer....then you call VISA up and tell them you won't be sending them your payments on your VISA, because VISA raised your debt limit.

You must be a republican when you ask for more money on credit then refuse to pay the bill you ran up.

Are all rethugs dead beats now a days? Or does it just seem like that?

the bill passed in the house funds our debt obligations 100%, so no one is saying we won't pay our bills

but to your example, what would Visa say if you told them you were only going to pay the interest on the debt and never planned to pay anything on the principle? That is what our govt is telling our creditors.

second question, if the debt continues to rise, the interest on it will consume the entire national budget,,,, what then?

Hey that's an easy one. VISA would tell you (if you only pay interest, no principal) that your credit would be downgraded and that there would be an increase in card fees and don't bother asking for an extension in your credit again.

Kinda like what other governments will say if we default or only make an interest payment.


The second question is a bit harder.

One of the basic tenants of economics is the idea that all debt is paid. It is either paid by the credit grantor or the debtor. But it will be paid. So the idea that we could run up our interest charges to the point that we consume the entire nations budget means that either we default and the creditors suck up the debt or we tax ourselves to the point where we can pay our debt.

In either case, our country would be so bankrupt that what difference would it make?
If we are so broke or so in debt that our entire budget is going to pay interest, we are done anyway.

And I don't think we are headed in that direction, but with the current crop of Plutocrats in Washington, who really knows.

 

[Redfish]

Oh please......you were so close to understanding. Lets carry your little scenario out to the logical extension that rethugs in Congress use.

So you called VISA, asked them to raise your card limit so that you could buy your computer..and VISA does that and you do buy your computer....then you call VISA up and tell them you won't be sending them your payments on your VISA, because VISA raised your debt limit.

You must be a republican when you ask for more money on credit then refuse to pay the bill you ran up.

Are all rethugs dead beats now a days? Or does it just seem like that?

the bill passed in the house funds our debt obligations 100%, so no one is saying we won't pay our bills

but to your example, what would Visa say if you told them you were only going to pay the interest on the debt and never planned to pay anything on the principle? That is what our govt is telling our creditors.

second question, if the debt continues to rise, the interest on it will consume the entire national budget,,,, what then?

Hey that's an easy one. VISA would tell you (if you only pay interest, no principal) that your credit would be downgraded and that there would be an increase in card fees and don't bother asking for an extension in your credit again.

Kinda like what other governments will say if we default or only make an interest payment.


The second question is a bit harder.

One of the basic tenants of economics is the idea that all debt is paid. It is either paid by the credit grantor or the debtor. But it will be paid. So the idea that we could run up our interest charges to the point that we consume the entire nations budget means that either we default and the creditors suck up the debt or we tax ourselves to the point where we can pay our debt.

In either case, our country would be so bankrupt that what difference would it make?
If we are so broke or so in debt that our entire budget is going to pay interest, we are done anyway.

And I don't think we are headed in that direction, but with the current crop of Plutocrats in Washington, who really knows.

we are only paying interest on our debt NOW. Thats why the debt limit has to be raised every year. expenditures exceed revenue by about 1 trillion every year.

It cannot go on forever, at some point the country is going to have to make the hard decisions to cut spending, and everyone will feel the pain. Its the only way out, unless we decide to allow china to annex the USA.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Raising the debt ceiling is not a spending program, therefore it cannot itself add to the debt.

We seem to have to raise the debt ceiling every year.
This is debt,money already spent that we have to make good on.
And every year it needs to be raised again.
Which seems to me that we have spent more then the year before.

So how can we be that we have not added to the debt?

Am I wrong here?

There's a semantics issue here that everyone is getting worked up over.

Congress and the President control the debt limit. They also control the spending and taxation to pay for the spending.

If they've passed spending/taxation legislation that assures the debt limit will be exceeded in the future, it's their responsibility to either raise the debt limit appropriately,

or pass legislation assuring that the debt limit won't be exceeded.

It is totally inappropriate and irresponsible to fail to do either.

 

[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.

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.

The tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 began driving down the taxes to GDP ratio long before the recession came along.

GW Bush and the Republicans embraced a very wrongheaded philosophy in 2001. They argued that since the budget was producing a surplus,

then Americans must be overtaxed, because we were taking in more than we needed. That sounds very reasonable at first hearing,

but, it ignores that we also already had a massive debt in 2001 and surpluses were the only way you could pay down that debt.

 

[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.

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.

The people are responsible. We have a government of the people. We are electing those who are making spending/taxation laws.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

The tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 began driving down the taxes to GDP ratio long before the recession came along.

GW Bush and the Republicans embraced a very wrongheaded philosophy in 2001. They argued that since the budget was producing a surplus,

then Americans must be overtaxed, because we were taking in more than we needed. That sounds very reasonable at first hearing,

but, it ignores that we also already had a massive debt in 2001 and surpluses were the only way you could pay down that debt.

9/11 had no affect on the economy?

Wow you should write on economics with Krugamn

 

[Intense]

Raising the debt ceiling is not a spending program, therefore it cannot itself add to the debt.

Only the ability.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 began driving down the taxes to GDP ratio long before the recession came along.

GW Bush and the Republicans embraced a very wrongheaded philosophy in 2001. They argued that since the budget was producing a surplus,

then Americans must be overtaxed, because we were taking in more than we needed. That sounds very reasonable at first hearing,

but, it ignores that we also already had a massive debt in 2001 and surpluses were the only way you could pay down that debt.

9/11 had no affect on the economy?

Wow you should write on economics with Krugamn

Yes, it got us into 2 wars neither of which did the Republicans make any effort to pay for.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Raising the debt ceiling is not a spending program, therefore it cannot itself add to the debt.

Only the ability.

Why would the legislature refuse to raise the debt ceiling in order to accommodate the increased debt that the legislature created?

Where's the proposed Republican budget that does not require a debt ceiling increase?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 began driving down the taxes to GDP ratio long before the recession came along.

GW Bush and the Republicans embraced a very wrongheaded philosophy in 2001. They argued that since the budget was producing a surplus,

then Americans must be overtaxed, because we were taking in more than we needed. That sounds very reasonable at first hearing,

but, it ignores that we also already had a massive debt in 2001 and surpluses were the only way you could pay down that debt.

9/11 had no affect on the economy?

Wow you should write on economics with Krugamn

Yes, it got us into 2 wars neither of which did the Republicans make any effort to pay for.

Krugman said that WWII was never paid for!

 

[NYcarbineer]

9/11 had no affect on the economy?

Wow you should write on economics with Krugamn

Yes, it got us into 2 wars neither of which did the Republicans make any effort to pay for.

Krugman said that WWII was never paid for!

Your guess that I'm Paul Krugman is wrong.