[identity profile] dwer.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
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.)

(no subject)

Date: 1/7/11 21:50 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
Y'see, when Bush did the wars off the books, $0 were spent. Then when Obama came on board, he put all of those in the budget, so actually $3 trillion was spent. All at once.

(no subject)

Date: 1/7/11 21:57 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
The accounting was never broken. What Obama did was include the spending in the budget as opposed to off-budget. The impact to the overall spending and deficit remain the same, it just stopped being an emergency appropriation.

In other words, during the Bush years, the war was funding intermittently by continuing resolutions - $80b here, $120b there. That would get added to the overall debt number - that's part of the reason why Bush's budget deficits and the overall increase in debt don't add up. All Obama did was move that spending onto the budget.

Given that the costs per year were about $120b or so, we see no benefit on the deficit side, and Obama did not somehow move trillions of the war spending onto his first budget.

(no subject)

Date: 1/7/11 22:01 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Please, again, cite your work.

(no subject)

Date: 1/7/11 22:22 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com
It's cute and all that you think you've proven anything so far, but I've still got hope that you'll read the evidence that has been provided.

(no subject)

Date: 1/7/11 23:05 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mrbogey.livejournal.com
That's not a belief. That's exactly how it works.

You're the creationist telling the evolutionary biologist that evolution is what he believes.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30