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

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

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The actual costs are very important. That's why I want dwer to focus on those as opposed to estimated final costs. No one - not even Stiglitz - believes what dwer believes, and dwer doesn't even realize that.

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.

Re: uh, okay then

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

You should write lyrics for the insane clown posse.

"Fucking budgets, how do they work?"

"Debt spending.
It's all around you...
and you don't even know it."

Re: uh, okay then

[dwer.livejournal.com]

It's really too bad.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bushs_fuzzy_math_masked_true_cost_1216.html

For 2009, the administration cited "uncertainty" in Iraq, and excluded full war-funding costs from its annual Defense budget which will force Obama's hand in 2009.

Re: uh, okay then

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments further projects that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost US taxpayers as much as $1.7 trillion.

could.

The CSBA's report, using data provided primarily by the Defense Department and the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. spent $904 billion on the wars thus far, in 2008 dollars.

Now you're providing more sources that support my claim. You realize this, right? Also:

The CSBA's assessment comes in below some of the highest estimates for the wars' costs. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard economist Laura Bilmes estimated Iraq alone would cost $3 trillion when factoring costs beyond the battlefield, such as veterans health benefits and disability pay.

Emphasis mine. "Would" being a descriptor of future, not current.

Re: uh, okay then

[dwer.livejournal.com]

If you're going to quote an article from 2008 -- three years ago -- on the costs of the war, I'm not going to stop you, but it only bolsters my argument.

Re: uh, okay then

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So you honestly, truly believe that Obama has added $2.2 trillion plus to the wars in 3 years.

This is your argument? If it is not, what is your argument. In detail. With numbers, preferably from the budget.

Re: uh, okay then

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, I think that Bush spent far more than you are willing to admit, and he hid it so that the numbers didn't reflect the truth, just like the justifications for invading Iraq didn't reflect the truth.

Re: uh, okay then

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Okay, then prove it. Prove he spent more than I'm "willing to admit." Add up the appropriations, show me all the spending.

Remember - the executive does not hold the pursestrings. All those dollars had to have been approved by Congress in some form, so you should be able to add up all the appropriations and all the budget numbers and come to your number.

Re: uh, okay then

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Exactly how did he do this magical spending? Did he steal it from the treasury himself, or did he get a flunky to drive over there and take it?

Or are you actually claiming that our public debt is actually more than $1T higher than what we think it is? Are you claiming that the gov't is cooking the books and not reporting expenditures?

Re: uh, okay then

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

3 years isn't long enough for all the soldiers to retire and max out their benefits.

Re: uh, okay then

[dwer.livejournal.com]

And, of course, there were no OTHER expenses. give me a break.

Re: uh, okay then

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Wait, so you're not understanding the report you're citing?

He's citing costs due to the war in total including military benefits due directly to the war. I read the summary and I got that.

I know, I'm expecting you to understand what you're posting, what the fuck is my problem?

Re: uh, okay then

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

You don't have to prove to me you don't understand the issue.

Re: uh, okay then

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Good, cause I'm not.