Hypocrisy and the GOP: Increasing the Debt Limit

[dwer.livejournal.com]

So right now, the GOP is attempting to shove the US over the cliff of default by refusing to increase the debt limit without massive spending cuts.

Funny, they didn't seem to complain about such things before.

At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House 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.

Now, I suppose you can make an argument for not increasing the debt limit, although I'm unlikely to agree with you. However, doesn't it bother our conservative friends on this board that this is -clearly- an example of the GOP doing something simply to cause Obama to fail, rather than any actual principles they might allegedly have?

Without raising the debt limit, the US will start to default on debt. That will devalue the dollar, crush confidence in the US both within and outside the country, and therefore impedes our leadership in the world when we're still involved in two wars, have bases around the world, and are participating in more than one "peace-keeping" mission via the UN or NATO. Whether or not those are reasonable things for the US to be doing, we're -already- doing them, and it seems to me that defaulting in the middle of these activities won't be very productive. Will the US be able to sign and ratify treaties? Economic agreements? Will foreign companies continue to invest?

(specific data culled from Think Progress.)

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I've already given you the information on why you're wrong on that one; you dismissed it, since you couldn't see past your blinders. Whatevs.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, you didn't. You gave me information that did not prove your case. Possible final costs later are not costs now.

Yes, I'm holding your feet to the fire on this. Just admit you're wrong for once in your life.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I'll admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong. You haven't established that, and it looks like you never will.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I've shown you exactly how much has been spent so far. What do you have other than an estimate of what total costs might be?

Let's recall (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/2613562.html?thread=61953338#t61953338), shall we? Your link was to Stiglitz's estimate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html). Let's see what he has to say:

But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

Stiglitz notes that the $3 trillion is an estimate of all costs, now and future. And it's not a note of cost of spending, but simply his completely stupid estimates on what it may have "cost the economy."

So yeah, you are wrong. We're waiting.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

It's too bad about those blinders.

uh, okay then

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I mean, the irony about you complaining about blinders is thick here.

Re: uh, okay then

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, you simply refuse to believe the data that's set in front of you.

Re: uh, okay then

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, I believe the data just fine - I believe that Joseph Stiglitz estimates that the cost of the war, in the future, will be over $3 trillion. That tells me nothing about the cost of the war today, which is the part you don't get.

Re: uh, okay then

[dwer.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry you don't get it.

Re: uh, okay then

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not the one who doesn't get it, fortunately for me.

I mean, really. You must have some actual budget data or something.

Re: uh, okay then

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Funny, the CBO figures aren't that much different with "the crazy talk" prediction that has Jeff doing pretzels. And telling isn't it, LETS USE THE COST TODAY YOU KNOW NOT ESTIMATED COSTS. Using that logic, maybe they're wrong about how dire Social Security and Medicare is. Unless this is a gotcha-game Jeff is trying to create with you over a semantic issue (which I suspect it really is). The Iraq and Afganistan wars were, and are very expensive.

Re: uh, okay then

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Far more so than they would have you believe.

Re: uh, okay then

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, what I want dwer to do is actually be factual. That the CBO may have similar estimates does not change what the actual costs, so far, have been. After all, the CBO certainly is not saying the war has cost $3 trillion as of 1 July 2011. And I'm pretty sure you don't think that, either.

Re: uh, okay then

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah Jeff, like the actual costs are completely meaningless. Sure, they don't mean a thing. It's like play money,

Re: uh, okay then

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

This statement would still categorically be wrong-

"So 9.5 trillion isn't too much, but 15 trillion -- when 3 Trillion of that is Bush Wars that weren't on the books"

Re: uh, okay then

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, it wouldn't.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I think Jeff is right; you misunderstood Stiglitz's estimate. $3 trillion was his estimate both of government spending and economic losses. The economic losses include things like reduced GDP due to higher oil prices caused by the war. So not all of that $3 trillion goes on the public debt.

His number is wrong too; it excludes indirect costs like healthcare for disabled veterans as a result of the war.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Interesting, thanks for the link.

Re: Your thoughts?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

So Dwer is still wrong in his original assertion and only by expanding upon it he's closer to being right but still wrong.

Re: Your thoughts?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

keep on hoeing that row.

Re: Your thoughts?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Do you expect me to do anything less than rub your face in it when you're wrong?

I intend to make sure you don't forget this as long as you keep insisting you're right. Man, you really look bad.

Re: Your thoughts?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

It's funny, because the only people who look bad are you and Jeff.

Re: Your thoughts?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It makes a lot of assumptions, from extra Pentagon spending to projected veterans costs through 40 years from now. It's guilty of a lot of the same problems as the Stiglitz estimates.