If it's either that or defaulting, which assumes no spending deal is reached, then he would have to go that route if it's available. McConnell is definitely trying to pass the buck here, but if the debt ceiling isn't raised and the markets start to panic - or worse - then Republicans are probably going to be saddled with the blame, especially when $4T in spending cuts were on the table. So, as Getslow said, if Republicans don't want to accept a deal with Obama on spending, then this is as shrewd as a move as it gets.

 

Whether a deal is found or not, Dems will blame Reps and the Elephants are going to blame the Donkeys.

If I read correctly, Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times during his presidency and all Republican leaders supported him in this. The Deomcrats were against it then and now the tables were reversed. What makes me sick is to think about how this issue is being used as a political football when all it hurts is the American people. Yes, the ceiling needs to be raised, but it needs to be accompanied with tax increases and spending cuts. I would say it's about time that they stop worrying about their political futures and do what is best for the country.

But! Will Obama admit to failed leadership when, after all, that's what he accused the Bush Administration of for what he now wants?

One of the issues is closing tax loopholes that some say many corporations are legally taking advantage of.

 

How do we define "loophole?"

I think it is failed leadership for awhile including Bushes, Clinton, Reagan and awhile back who kept on pushing the issue off for political points instead of providing needed leadership.

 

Wow, talk about a paradigm shift. I was thinking the debt decreased under Clinton and that it may have also decreased under Reagan in his second term, so I searched it on google. I came across the chart in this link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

 

For those who can't pull the link up, since Dwight Eisenhower the debt as a percentage of GDP has decreased under every Democrat president and increased under every Republican president except Nixon in his first term. Reagan did do a better job in his second term but there was still an increase. Obama has some work to do if he wants to keep that string intact. As of the end of 2010, he is 9% in the red. The worst by far was GW Bush with a negative 20.7% at the end of his second term. Best performance was Clinton at end of his second term with a 9% decrease.

Armed Services are pretty good.

 

While a HUGE fan of the US Armed Forces, they are not well run from a financial point of view. Symptomatic of any huge governmental organization with the red tape, political favors, etc. costing them 100's of billions in excessive costs. The military is one of the few things the federal government SHOULD be running.

O has done so much in so little time. Bravo!!

 

O has done so much in so little time. Bravo!!

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34023[/ATTACH]

 

A very sobering, albeit eye-opening chart.

Wow, talk about a paradigm shift. I was thinking the debt decreased under Clinton and that it may have also decreased under Reagan in his second term, so I searched it on google. I came across the chart in this link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

 

For those who can't pull the link up, since Dwight Eisenhower the debt as a percentage of GDP has decreased under every Democrat president and increased under every Republican president except Nixon in his first term. Reagan did do a better job in his second term but there was still an increase. Obama has some work to do if he wants to keep that string intact. As of the end of 2010, he is 9% in the red. The worst by far was GW Bush with a negative 20.7% at the end of his second term. Best performance was Clinton at end of his second term with a 9% decrease.

 

Curious who was in charge of the Congress (who actually dictates spending) throughout your study?? I think Clinton, while a scumbag as a person, wasn't that bad of a President. He had sense enough to not mess too much with Reagan's fiscal policies, and his legacy has benefited greatly as a result.

 

Bush, while great for national defense, broke the conservative/liberal flip-flop mold from administration to administration by trying too hard to please everyone; and we are now living with the more liberal policies started in the Clinton years. At the root of the current depression is the housing crisis, primarily caused by the forced too liberal qualification policies (most banks would say anything from unsound to absurd) from the Feds.

 

Simply put, spending is out of control and both the R's & D's are to blame, with absurd regulation, the outlandish cost of illegals, and ridiculous trade policies a close second.

 

Finally--Social Security is NOT an entitlement to those who have been forced to pay into the system their entire lives.

Wow, talk about a paradigm shift. I was thinking the debt decreased under Clinton and that it may have also decreased under Reagan in his second term, so I searched it on google. I came across the chart in this link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

 

For those who can't pull the link up, since Dwight Eisenhower the debt as a percentage of GDP has decreased under every Democrat president and increased under every Republican president except Nixon in his first term. Reagan did do a better job in his second term but there was still an increase. Obama has some work to do if he wants to keep that string intact. As of the end of 2010, he is 9% in the red. The worst by far was GW Bush with a negative 20.7% at the end of his second term. Best performance was Clinton at end of his second term with a 9% decrease.

 

I'm not saying GW Bush should get a free pass but.... stock market, housing bubble bursts, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan. I think alot of what has hurt the US right now is something the American people had to learn the hard way and that's war's cost ALOT of money, and then some. Going into these conflicts the media made it out to be like this is our revenge and not doing this will be a show of weakness. Moral was high, I'm sure the US will enter a similar situation in the future, one where we may feel we're facing an inferior opponent where ultimately we will prevail. But at what cost$$$$?

O has done so much in so little time. Bravo!!

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34023[/ATTACH]

 

Git'r dun!!! :lol:

I'm not saying GW Bush should get a free pass but.... stock market, housing bubble bursts, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan. I think alot of what has hurt the US right now is something the American people had to learn the hard way and that's war's cost ALOT of money, and then some. Going into these conflicts the media made it out to be like this is our revenge and not doing this will be a show of weakness. Moral was high, I'm sure the US will enter a similar situation in the future, one where we may feel we're facing an inferior opponent where ultimately we will prevail. But at what cost$$$$?

 

Yet in Titletownclown's chart, the debt was much smaller and growing at a smaller rate during World War II, Korea and Vietnam. All of those wars engaged many, many more troops and naval resources. Why was the debt so much smaller? Were taxes higher to pay the costs then? Were social programs that much smaller in those days.?

Standard and Poor's will downgrade the US's debt if the ceiling isn't raised, even if the US continued to make payments on its debt while sacrificing other expenditures.

 

This would immediately make borrowing more expensive, causing the US to pay higher interest rates and find it somewhat more difficult to sell its bonds. It would probably kickstart the market into a very negative reaction, though a violent reaction is likely forthcoming at any rate. And this is all before the US formally begins defaulting. There are no advantages of being a deadbeat country and that's exponentially more true for the country sitting at the top of the world order.

Edited July 15, 201115 yr by Habib

Is there any advantages to continue spending when you don't have the funds to pay for it besides borrowing more?

Is there any advantages to continue spending when you don't have the funds to pay for it besides borrowing more?

 

Getting re-elected?

Is there any advantages to continue spending when you don't have the funds to pay for it besides borrowing more?

 

Spending absolutely needs to be reigned in and it's a debate we should be having. But the debt ceiling debate is about whether the US, the world's largest economy, should default on its debt and suffer the global financial calamity that would follow.