Obama Quote On The Debt

[PapaG]

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/37972

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011...bama-and-i-just-make-stats-up-out-of-nothing/

The President referenced a poll sponsored by MoveOn.org and that only sampled 4 blue states.

I'd say I'm shocked, but the way the media covers for this assclown, soon enough the 80% will become the truth, and those questioning it are "extremists". Look for CBS or CNN to put out a poll soon showing something close to the 80% number.

 

[FatJerry]

Default can't and won't happen. We're legally obligated to pay our debts first, and we have enough money to cover it.

By technical definition debt default also covers missed interest payment

 

[Shooter]

The racists show their colors by once again condemning Obama for emulating Bush and the Republican Party.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

After squandering/pilfering a record surplus left by Clinton, Republicans raised the debt limit nearly 4 trillion $ over 5 years time.

How much "wiggle-room" is Obama asking for to clean up their mess?

And you don't think the world has changed since Obama passed the biggest spending bill in the history of the country, putting us deeper in debt than all previous administrations combined???

 

[Minstrel]

"We need to make policy that I believe is important. After that's done, let's all of us rich folk fly to a large US city and have a fundraiser for my re-election campaign."

After editing your Obama narrative for accuracy, it sounds pretty much like standard operating procedure for all first-term Presidents.

 

[maxiep]

By technical definition debt default also covers missed interest payment

I'm aware of what default entails.

 

[PapaG]

After editing your Obama narrative for accuracy, it sounds pretty much like standard operating procedure for all first-term Presidents.

Does it? I disagree, but since I'm perusing the latest photo from Queen Victoria's kids frolicking around naked, I'm a bit distracted. Of course, slavery was legal in England and the USA at the same time too, and that might have made me head explode!!

/dumb analogy

 

[Klinky]

Of course, slavery was legal in England and the USA at the same time too, and that might have made me head explode!!

People ate bread & pooped during that time period too, must mean everything from that time period was bad.

I am glad you've abstained from pooping for so long, it actually explains a lot. We don't have to worry so much about your head exploding, as your ass, but given that one is usually firmly located in the other, perhaps we have to worry about both.

 

[Shooter]

If you're having trouble understanding Obama's position on the national debt, think of it this way . . .

You have a credit card. You have been spending like crazy, and maxed out your $10,000 credit limit. You have no idea how you'll ever pay your bill, but then you get a great idea. You'll just increase your credit limit to $20,000!! Problem solved. Now you can go on spending like you want to, without having to worry. Yeah!!!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If you're having trouble understanding Obama's position on the national debt, think of it this way . . .

You have a credit card and no job. You have been spending like crazy, and maxed out your $10,000 credit limit. You have no idea how you'll ever pay your bill, but then you get a great idea. You'll just increase your credit limit to $20,000!! Problem solved. Now you can go on spending like you want to, with the unsubstantiated hope that a six-figure income is right around the corner.

FTFY

 

[PapaG]

People ate bread & pooped during that time period too, must mean everything from that time period was bad.

I am glad you've abstained from pooping for so long, it actually explains a lot. We don't have to worry so much about your head exploding, as your ass, but given that one is usually firmly located in the other, perhaps we have to worry about both.

Whatever I posted before about absurd analogies, I withdraw and attach it to this post.

 

[mobes23]

If you're having trouble understanding Obama's position on the national debt, think of it this way . . .

You have a credit card. You have been spending like crazy, and maxed out your $10,000 credit limit. You have no idea how you'll ever pay your bill, but then you get a great idea. You'll just increase your credit limit to $20,000!! Problem solved. Now you can go on spending like you want to, without having to worry. Yeah!!!

I don't think that's quite right. Same situation, but you have a bunch of recurring obligations (comcast bill, phone bill, rent, etc.) or other new payments that you've signed your name to pay (tuition, season tickets, whatever smart or stupid things you can think of) and the only way you can pay for those things you've already committed to pay is to raise the credit limit.

In other words, do you pay the people you owe or do you flake? The choices of what to fund largely have been made and approved. The debt issue really needs to be attacked during the budget approval process, not the debt ceiling.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think that's quite right. Same situation, but you have a bunch of recurring obligations (comcast bill, phone bill, rent, etc.) or other new payments that you've signed your name to pay (tuition, season tickets, whatever smart or stupid things you can think of) and the only way you can pay for those things you've already committed to pay is to raise the credit limit.

In other words, do you pay the people you owe or do you flake? The choices of what to fund largely have been made and approved. The debt issue really needs to be attacked during the budget approval process, not the debt ceiling.

You could cancel the season tickets, or more realistically, get a Cadillac instead of a Rolls Royce since the payments would be cheaper. Better yet, buy a Yugo for cash and you have no payments at all.

 

[mobes23]

You could cancel the season tickets, or more realistically, get a Cadillac instead of a Rolls Royce since the payments would be cheaper. Better yet, buy a Yugo for cash and you have no payments at all.

Sure thing -- it's all good if the commitments are cancellable. The point I was trying to make is that the bulk are not cancellable.

The debt limit needs to be increased to cover items already approved and not, like the other poster said, increased so that Obama can start spending willy nilly. Again, the spending battle needs to fought on the front end when the budget is approved. Fighting that battle with the debt ceiling just puts us in a place where it'll be even more expensive to borrow and we'll be in an even deepr hole.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure thing -- it's all good if the commitments are cancellable. The point I was trying to make is that the bulk are not cancellable.

The debt limit needs to be increased to cover items already approved and not, like the other poster said, increased so that Obama can start spending willy nilly. Again, the spending battle needs to fought on the front end when the budget is approved. Fighting that battle with the debt ceiling just puts us in a place where it'll be even more expensive to borrow and we'll be in an even deepr hole.

Fighting the battle when the budget is supposed to be approved leads to the same thing as the debt ceiling issue. Govt. gets shut down. Both sides have really good leverage and have no need to budge. But I ultimately think Obama is in the slightly weaker position, because he's the one who wants to spendspendspend.

 

[blazerboy30]

Sure thing -- it's all good if the commitments are cancellable. The point I was trying to make is that the bulk are not cancellable.

The debt limit needs to be increased to cover items already approved and not, like the other poster said, increased so that Obama can start spending willy nilly. Again, the spending battle needs to fought on the front end when the budget is approved. Fighting that battle with the debt ceiling just puts us in a place where it'll be even more expensive to borrow and we'll be in an even deepr hole.

Well, the GOP position of agreeing to raise the debt limit for a constitutional amendment is basically doing what you suggest. They are fighting for future balanced budgets... and we can pay off the current obligations.

 

[mobes23]

Fighting over the budget does not have the impact of messing with the debt ceiling. While both result in gov't shut down, a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have a huge impact on our ability to issue debt going forward. If we can't be fully dependend on to pay for our commitments, debt buyers will walk away or demand higher rates. It's a fast and easy way to make it a lot more difficult to pay down our debt.

Not to mention the short term impact on the economy.

 

[Draco]

Fighting over the budget does not have the impact of messing with the debt ceiling. While both result in gov't shut down, a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have a huge impact on our ability to issue debt going forward. If we can't be fully dependend on to pay for our commitments, debt buyers will walk away or demand higher rates. It's a fast and easy way to make it a lot more difficult to pay down our debt.

Not to mention the short term impact on the economy.

I kind of hope a default happens just to see what the hell the real life results are.

Would prices really change? Couldn't the Fed just buy US debt as part of it's monetary policy to stablize the economy?

 

[Denny Crane]

The fed has been buying $trillions of the debt already. If they didn't, the supply of bonds would go way up, not enough demand for it all, so they'd have to increase the yields to attract more investors. In doing so, the dollar is devalued because they print money (big time!) to pay for the bonds they're buying. And the debt payments at near zero yield are about $200B but at 5% would be $1T.

 

[mobes23]

I kind of hope a default happens just to see what the hell the real life results are.

Would prices really change? Couldn't the Fed just buy US debt as part of it's monetary policy to stablize the economy?

Sticking to the analogy we've been using, it would be similar to purposely screwing up your credit rating just to see what would happen. Investors tends to have pretty long memories on that sort of thing. Investors would require higher interest rates to make up for the newly created risk in the debt they're buying from the United States. There would not be a quick fix to correct it -- it would take years (decades? longer?) to make investors comfortable that we pay our bills.

Add in the short term stress it would put on the market and it's a no brainer that we should avoid it.

 

[Draco]

Sticking to the analogy we've been using, it would be similar to purposely screwing up your credit rating just to see what would happen. Investors tends to have pretty long memories on that sort of thing. Investors would require higher interest rates to make up for the newly created risk in the debt they're buying from the United States. There would not be a quick fix to correct it -- it would take years (decades? longer?) to make investors comfortable that we pay our bills.

Add in the short term stress it would put on the market and it's a no brainer that we should avoid it.

Maybe this would make my hoard of copper pennies worth more than their current $.03 scrap value!

 

[Draco]

Sticking to the analogy we've been using, it would be similar to purposely screwing up your credit rating just to see what would happen. Investors tends to have pretty long memories on that sort of thing. Investors would require higher interest rates to make up for the newly created risk in the debt they're buying from the United States. There would not be a quick fix to correct it -- it would take years (decades? longer?) to make investors comfortable that we pay our bills.

Add in the short term stress it would put on the market and it's a no brainer that we should avoid it.

Let’s say government debt reaches statutory limit, at that time the government couldn’t spend any more money then receives. The Treasury/Fed would have to prioritize cash outlays; they would likely pay debt interest and principle obligations before any other expenditure. California had to write IOU’s to contractors and taxpayers instead of immediately making payment.

Is it possible US Govt debt investors would see this action as a positive sign the US is becoming more fiscally responsible? Could this lower our cost of capital? If debt and interest payments are still paid on time, there would obviously be no default, even if some contracts or grandma’s SS payments get delayed.

 

[mobes23]

Let’s say government debt reaches statutory limit, at that time the government couldn’t spend any more money then receives. The Treasury/Fed would have to prioritize cash outlays; they would likely pay debt interest and principle obligations before any other expenditure. California had to write IOU’s to contractors and taxpayers instead of immediately making payment.

Is it possible US Govt debt investors would see this action as a positive sign the US is becoming more fiscally responsible? Could this lower our cost of capital? If debt and interest payments are still paid on time, there would obviously be no default, even if some contracts or grandma’s SS payments get delayed.

Heck, I'd never say never, but if I'm investing in an entity that can't pay it's bills, I'd be thinking the investment risk is higher. I'd also be worried that the entity might changes it's mind about who does/doesn't get paid.

The best thing, which you're pointing to, is that we have at least a balanced budget (even better, we're in the positive and paying down debt.) Investors would drool all over that. And that's were we need to get back to. I think everyone is pretty much in agreement over that. The biggest disagreement I see is how to get there. Some people think it needs to happen solely through spending cuts, but the smarter ones think it'll take a balance of spending cuts and tax revenues. (Lol flame suit on)

 

[Denny Crane]

The smarter ones realize that if we cut back to Clinton's spending level, adjusted up for inflation, we'd have a surplus without raising exes at all.

 

[mobes23]

The smarter ones realize that if we cut back to Clinton's spending level, adjusted up for inflation, we'd have a surplus without raising exes at all.

How many wars were going on at Clinton's spending level?

 

[BrianFromWA]

the "wars" are 100B a year right now ("Overseas Contigency Operations"). The entire DoD (including the OCO's) is ~650B. The debt is 1.6T.

 

[Denny Crane]

How many wars were going on at Clinton's spending level?

Clinton was quick to military action.

Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bangui, Albania, Congo, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Iraq, and a few others. Some more than once even. We had troops in Kosovo for years.

 

[Shooter]

Harry Reid says increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing!

[video=youtube;ELkbDdPeL7I]

 

[mobes23]

Is it just me or does the plan to lower mortgage interest deduction suck ass in terms of trying to get the housing situation in a better place?

 

[Denny Crane]

Not exactly "tax the rich" - but "tax the rich" is really a smoke screen for them taxing everyone and hitting the poorer people the hardest.

 

[Shooter]

Is it just me or does the plan to lower mortgage interest deduction suck ass in terms of trying to get the housing situation in a better place?

Of course it does. It's another classic example of Democratic schemes being bad for business, bad for taxpayers, and bad for the country.