So, is it just me or is this the era of the "small government" Republican administration officially over? Looking at the past 6 years, did that era ever officially begin?
What do you guys think, are we speeding toward a financial disaster?
Senate raises debt limit
Congress raised the limit on the government's credit card to $9 trillion Thursday and lawmakers immediately went on a charge-it spree.
The House approved $92 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for relief along the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast.
...
Senators earlier voted 52-48 to send Bush a measure that would allow the government to borrow an additional $781 billion and prevent a first-ever default on Treasury notes.
...
The debt limit increase was the fourth of Bush's presidency, totaling $3 trillion. With the budget deficit near record levels, an additional increase in the debt limit almost certainly will be required next year.
Treasury Secretary John Snow applauded Congress for "protecting the full faith and credit of the United States." He said it ensures that the government "can deliver on promises already made, such as Social Security and Medicare payments and aid for the victims of the 2005 hurricanes."
The present limit on the debt is $8.2 trillion.
The increase is an unhappy necessity -- the alternative would be a disastrous first-ever default on U.S. obligations -- that greatly overshadowed a mostly symbolic, weeklong debate on the GOP's budget resolution.
The very definition of insanity? 9 trillion dollar debt?
If you must!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
-
- Evilpandabear Offline
- Posts: 706
- Joined: December 19th, 2005, 4:09 pm
- Location: "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
- Contact:
Hamilton (see him on the new $10 bill!) once agrued that a country in debt is a powerful country, but this is ridiculous. I'm glad I'm leaving the country. Hopefully, by the time I get back things will have changed and we'll be having ourselves another surplus party.
"Anyone can teach improv. It's bullshit." -Andy Crouch on June 4th 11:33pm CST
Some debt I understand. I don't like, but I understand. But $9 Trillion?
Four debt ceiling increases for a 33% gain in debt load in just 5 years!? With more being planned? And I'll be damned if they didn't run to spend it immediately after this bill passed.
I am most angry that people still defend Bush as being "conservative" and for "smaller government." How little attention do you have to be paying to still think that? This WILL come back to bite us in the ass, and don't think merely electing a Democrat will change that. Two sides of the same coin. This country needs fundamental reform and change on almost every front.
Four debt ceiling increases for a 33% gain in debt load in just 5 years!? With more being planned? And I'll be damned if they didn't run to spend it immediately after this bill passed.
I am most angry that people still defend Bush as being "conservative" and for "smaller government." How little attention do you have to be paying to still think that? This WILL come back to bite us in the ass, and don't think merely electing a Democrat will change that. Two sides of the same coin. This country needs fundamental reform and change on almost every front.
-
- kbadr Offline
- Posts: 3614
- Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX (Kareem Badr)
- Contact:
The funniest thing was that I heard a Republican Senator defending Bush's tax rebate. The argument he used was something along the lines of "The tax rebate was only 900 million dollars." Oh, is that all? Just 10% of our current debt ceiling. Fuck it! Give me back another $300 so I can create more jobs.
You work your life away and what do they give?
You're only killing yourself to live
No, 10% would be 900 Billion, with a B.
We're talking astronomically large sums of debt here.
Personally, I'm more for cutting taxes than constantly increasing spending. Especially on the crap they do. Your taxes aren't just paying teachers and firemen or conducting pure science for the benefit of mankind. They are supporting "private" entities like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Cowgirl museum, giving Border's a tax cut to move into a location they already wanted to move into, buying a $223 million dollar bridge in Alaska to service a town of 50, and $231 million for a second bridge that connects Anchorage to an undeveloped piece of land. It's BS.
And this doesn't account for lost monies, inaccuracies, double payments, over payments, and other transgressions that happen in the system because it is so bloated. Someone found something like $90 million in pure waste per quarter in just 10 government departments. That's $360 million a year that is just "lost" in just 10 of the government's scores of agencies. And these weren't even the big spending departments like the Defense deaprtment or Social Security (which is apparently ripe with fraudulent and double payments).
It also doesn't account for people being encouraged to defraud the government because it is so hard to get caught, from fake Katrina victims to doctors that run tests that are unneeded just to charge Medicare to construction companies that take years to complete a single interstate exchange because they keep getting paid and have no penalties from running over budget and over schedule.
The problem with taxes is that they start to think that the money is theirs by right. You work for it. You are productive. You earn it. It pisses me off when they talk about "allowing" us to keep more of "our" money, or worse, when they phrase a tax cut like they are giving us money that was theirs. No, it was mine. You stole it, Senator.
OK, I'm ranting, I'll get off the stump now.
But seriously...four increases in 5 years? More planned? And we pat ourselves on the back for "protecting the full faith and credit of the United States." It sends shivers up my spine.
We're talking astronomically large sums of debt here.
Personally, I'm more for cutting taxes than constantly increasing spending. Especially on the crap they do. Your taxes aren't just paying teachers and firemen or conducting pure science for the benefit of mankind. They are supporting "private" entities like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Cowgirl museum, giving Border's a tax cut to move into a location they already wanted to move into, buying a $223 million dollar bridge in Alaska to service a town of 50, and $231 million for a second bridge that connects Anchorage to an undeveloped piece of land. It's BS.
And this doesn't account for lost monies, inaccuracies, double payments, over payments, and other transgressions that happen in the system because it is so bloated. Someone found something like $90 million in pure waste per quarter in just 10 government departments. That's $360 million a year that is just "lost" in just 10 of the government's scores of agencies. And these weren't even the big spending departments like the Defense deaprtment or Social Security (which is apparently ripe with fraudulent and double payments).
It also doesn't account for people being encouraged to defraud the government because it is so hard to get caught, from fake Katrina victims to doctors that run tests that are unneeded just to charge Medicare to construction companies that take years to complete a single interstate exchange because they keep getting paid and have no penalties from running over budget and over schedule.
The problem with taxes is that they start to think that the money is theirs by right. You work for it. You are productive. You earn it. It pisses me off when they talk about "allowing" us to keep more of "our" money, or worse, when they phrase a tax cut like they are giving us money that was theirs. No, it was mine. You stole it, Senator.
OK, I'm ranting, I'll get off the stump now.
But seriously...four increases in 5 years? More planned? And we pat ourselves on the back for "protecting the full faith and credit of the United States." It sends shivers up my spine.
-
- nadine Offline
- Posts: 915
- Joined: November 28th, 2005, 1:05 pm
- Location: quantum probability
- Contact:
-
- beardedlamb Offline
- Posts: 2676
- Joined: October 14th, 2005, 1:36 pm
- Location: austin
- Contact:
i'm not one for politics but i must say that i'm annoyed with american history's apparent cycle of popular beliefs on gov't. we allow people to run things who spend too much then we realize this is happening so we elect guys that don't spend anything. then the problems swing back the other way.
it's like a guy who's hot in his house so he turns off the heater. a few hours later he's cold so he turns it up to 78 and turns the heater back on instead of turning it on and setting it on 72. pisses me off. in '06 and '08 elections, the country is going to swing back to democratic. some of the problems will go away. as a result things will be taken for granted and then swing back to conservatism. the problem is everyone takes credit for things going right and blames the other side when it goes wrong. so i don't know which way is better to run a gov't. maybe it's good to play conservative in gov't. i just don't know. it's hard to tell because the public is so revenously reactionary.
people keep talking about how divided the country is, blue and red. well, what do you expect? american families can't even agree on where to go for dinner half the time. this is how new countries are formed. you know after all those bloody civil wars and beheadings.
i heard jimmy carter on NPR the other day and he sounded so intelligent. he could actually form sentences and respond to questions. he defended his positions but understood that people disagree with him. remember when US presidents used to be able to talk and think? i miss those times. carter politics aside, at least he's intelligent and qualified like reagan and clinton and awwwww al gore. bush is a fuckin idiot. people vote for him because they like his stance on the issues. they overlook the fact that he can't even talk because they like that he'll go in and smoke terrorists out of their holes, like their rabbits in Texas.
hi, politics? i'm out of my league. thank you.
b
it's like a guy who's hot in his house so he turns off the heater. a few hours later he's cold so he turns it up to 78 and turns the heater back on instead of turning it on and setting it on 72. pisses me off. in '06 and '08 elections, the country is going to swing back to democratic. some of the problems will go away. as a result things will be taken for granted and then swing back to conservatism. the problem is everyone takes credit for things going right and blames the other side when it goes wrong. so i don't know which way is better to run a gov't. maybe it's good to play conservative in gov't. i just don't know. it's hard to tell because the public is so revenously reactionary.
people keep talking about how divided the country is, blue and red. well, what do you expect? american families can't even agree on where to go for dinner half the time. this is how new countries are formed. you know after all those bloody civil wars and beheadings.
i heard jimmy carter on NPR the other day and he sounded so intelligent. he could actually form sentences and respond to questions. he defended his positions but understood that people disagree with him. remember when US presidents used to be able to talk and think? i miss those times. carter politics aside, at least he's intelligent and qualified like reagan and clinton and awwwww al gore. bush is a fuckin idiot. people vote for him because they like his stance on the issues. they overlook the fact that he can't even talk because they like that he'll go in and smoke terrorists out of their holes, like their rabbits in Texas.
hi, politics? i'm out of my league. thank you.
b
-
- deroosisonfire Offline
- Posts: 553
- Joined: September 10th, 2005, 4:49 pm
- Location: Austin, TX
i just read an article a few days ago about a book called "the untied states of america" (no, that's not a typo). the author believes that we're on our way to becoming multiple countries, and that it could realistically happen within the next 50 years. i'm not sure if i buy it, but he made the point that if in 1906 you had said that in 50 years the british empire would be a fraction of a current size nobody would have believed you.beardedlamb wrote:people keep talking about how divided the country is, blue and red. well, what do you expect? american families can't even agree on where to go for dinner half the time. this is how new countries are formed. you know after all those bloody civil wars and beheadings.
and that's all i have to say.
"There's no such thing as extra pepperoni. There's just pepperoni you can transfer to another person."
-Wes
-Wes
-
- beardedlamb Offline
- Posts: 2676
- Joined: October 14th, 2005, 1:36 pm
- Location: austin
- Contact:
sept that the brits were spread out all over the globe and not taking care of their back doors. we're all connected (mostly) and i think less likey to schiz like that.
but maybe we can do it peacefully without the new Red country attacking the peaceful Blue countries that surround it.
of course, i'll always say texas should go back to being it's own country. our economy would be pretty strong considering how much america loves beef and oil. oh, and crappy live music.
but maybe we can do it peacefully without the new Red country attacking the peaceful Blue countries that surround it.
of course, i'll always say texas should go back to being it's own country. our economy would be pretty strong considering how much america loves beef and oil. oh, and crappy live music.