Bush signs debt increase into law

“from cnn.com
Bush signs debt increase into law

President approves a measure authorizing an $800 billion increase in the nation\'s credit limit.
November 19, 2004: 12:35 PM EST



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush Friday signed into law a measure authorizing an $800 billion increase in the credit limit of the United States, the White House said.

On Thursday, the Republican-controlled House voted 208-204 to pass the bill. Senate approval came on Wednesday.

Democrats said the debt limit increase, the third in as many years, was necessitated by Bush's "irresponsible" fiscal priorities, including what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California described as tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate handouts.



Republicans say the 2001 recession and the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks are responsible for the fiscal shortfall.

The budget deficit hit a record $412 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 and the Congressional Budget Office has projected $2.3 trillion in accumulated deficits over the next decade.”

“So much for the myth of fiscal conservatism.

Thanks to Junior and his fellow crooks, the national debt has now topped 8 trillion dollars.”

“I think that the deficit hawks are still there. The Republican Party is not monolithic. During an election, it is best policy to stand together and not criticise. But the budget hawks have to be stewing in the caucus.

The Republicans only gained a handful of House seats. That gives them a historically small margin on party line votes. If the Democrats are disciplined, they can push to eviscerate Bush's profligate spending and pick off the fiscal conservatives on a range of bills.

Are there 10 fiscal conservatives among Republicans in the House? I would think so.”

“The Outstanding Public Debt:




http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
last edited: 11/20/04 9:50:25 AM”

“House Approves $388 Billion Spending Bill

WASHINGTON - Republicans whisked a $388 billion spending bill through the House on Saturday, a mammoth measure that underscores the dominance of deficit politics by curbing dollars for everything from education to environmental cleanups.
<snip>
While the spending bill was one of the most austere in years, it had something for everybody, including thousands of home-district projects worth several billion dollars:
<snip>
A potential boon for Bush himself, $2 million for the government to try buying back the presidential yacht Sequoia. The boat was sold three decades ago, though its current owners say the yacht is not for sale.
<snip>
last edited: 11/21/04 8:47:02 PM”

“Nothing at all?

$2 million for a presidential yacht when we’re told the government can’t afford to help the poorest among us? Rescinding an ethics rule when it might effect one of your own? Sneaking a rule into an appropriations bill allowing politicians to snoop into tax returns of political enemies?

Those of you who voted based on ‘moral values’ may be in for a rude awakening.”

“Cut the budget and raise the debt limit?
Something smells.
What else is coming down the pipeline?”

“I do find it odd that no one supporting Bush has chimed in to support him on these bills”

“Takes a lot of money to fix all the things Clinton broke in 8 years!”

“real intelligent answer”

“You weren't looking for an intelligent answer. You were looking for something you could ridicule, and since your standards are so low, I had to make it simple.”

“and you know that how..simple minded is what you are troll

another troll gets "clicked"
last edited: 11/22/04 10:14:43 AM”

“What's next, GWB's U-Boat fleet? We need a central thread to rub all this crap in the moron-majority's pie-holes over the next 4 years. Something like "Moron-Majority Aftermath", or something to that effect.”

“Why didn't Edwards and Kerry vote against the bill?”

“Guess I hit a nerve. I can't respond to you're comment without being a troll? I guess that makes sense.”

“The blaming Clinton for everything thing is old and unrealistic, NoProb.”

“Because the government would have shut down without the bill. And, the money has already been spent. This wasn't a choice at the time of the vote.

Tax cuts were a choice.
Massive spending increases were a choice.”

“Bush's choices mirror a Butch Davis Offensive Game Plan.”

“Tree, that is why I clicked him. The Clinton was the problem gets old and that is all they can throw out. Plus if I am not mistaken didn't Clinton leave with a surplus or the national debt was the lowest it had been in a while.

Somewhere down the road someone is going to have to pay for all of this.”

“I'm not saying that Clinton is the only reason, he certainly isn't, but he contributed. Increased spending, yes. Tax cut? I'm not sure. Historically tax cuts have had the effect of adding money to the treasury (I don't know the actual results of this one). I know many will disagree. But I will show you the respect of not calling you names.”

“Well, since I have no respect for morons, your idiodic statements makes no sense, please proceed to pounding salt.”

“I'm guessing that there's been more increased spending in the last four years than you are letting on to, NP. Sorry, but it's not like Bush just got into office yesterday anymore...”

““Takes a lot of money to fix all the things Clinton broke in 8 years!”
NoProb
10:06:35 AM
11/22/04

Yeah, ended peace, prosperity and a budget surplus soaks up a lot of cash.”

“BB, thank you for your informed opinion. It's clear you spent a lot of time thinking of just the right response.

TB, sorry I didn't make it clear that I don't consider the increased spending to be part of fixing what Clinton broke. Some was, much wasn't.”

“You are terribly misinformed about the effects of tax cuts on revenues, NoProb. By believing a lie, you are part of the problem.

I know you won't believe anything I post and if I prove you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, you'll stick with your fantasy, so I won't even bother. If you want to try to be a decently informed citizen, look into it for yourself.
last edited: 11/22/04 11:35:07 AM”

“Well, I MUST be wrong then.”

“My understanding is that 30% of the US national debt (NOT DEFICIT) was in incurred during Bush's four years. He has incurred as much debt as the US incurred from founding to 1986.

This was fine when the US was the undeniable world power. However, our reputation abroad is not like it once was. Our dollar is weakening versus other mainline world currencies. And other nations could potentially rival us for economic supremacy in the future.

But let's be honest. A certain percentage of this debt is Iraq related. However, lots of it is going to pay for the prescription plan for seniors. Some is going for faith based welfare programs. Lots is going to the Bush panzi scheme of borrowing money we don't have from our children to infuse money into the economy through tax cuts...errr, generational wealth redistribution.

Let's earn and spend our own money for once.”

“If we take money from the rich and give it to the poor, it's called socialism.

If we take money from the future and give it to ourselves, it's called a tax cut.”

“If we take money from the rich and give it to the poor, it's called socialism.

If we take money from the future and give it to ourselves, it's called a tax cut.

Correct on the first RL but wrong on the second.

What we have, and it is wrong, is spending more than we are taking in.

Borrowing money and pledging future income to pay for it is a basic platform for successful capitalism. But the asset you purchase with borrowed money is supposed to make you more money in the long term.
best example is buying a house, borrow money, and repayment is little different than paying rent, but in time you will own the asset and not only be rent free, but will own the house worth a lot of money.

Good examples for Govt borrowing are the Louisiana and Alaska purchases. Borrowing to buy and set up National parks, then using park fees to repay and fund operations.

This current administration is taking out an equity loan to get the lawn mowed, trouble is the Democratic candidate had even more spending planned so we the taxpayer were up sh_t creek whoever won.

Fault the congress, not the President, Bush Snr, tried not signing and pushing back on the (then) Democratic congress until Govt stopped. This does not let GW off the hook for not trying to stem the bleeding.
Yes it is a Republican congress now, which seems to have forgotten Newt Gingrich (The Grinch) who was the driving force to cut spending in-line with income.

Bunch of rectums in my book, all of them.”

“Tax cuts do produce more revenues. Arkansas State revenues are way up.”

“bbw, that can't be true. V said so.”

“bbw, if we take that to the extreme and cut out all taxes we should be able to spend much more ?

I don't think so.

There is a point where excessive tax supresses incentive, then reducing tax will get people to spend more and take more business risk to get the greater reward. Where there is already adequate incentive, tax cuts will just reduce revenue.

I think the current problem is more related to excessive spending than anything to do with the tax cuts.

The more tax you are paying the more effective a tax cut is to stimulate the economy, conversly the less tax being paid the less effective a tax cut is.”

“I just saw where the Wild Turkey Federation over in Strom Thurmond's old neighborhood is getting $225,000 in this republican porkfest.

gobble-gobble.”

“$225,000 worth of Wild Turkey. That should make some of you very happy.”

“I don't disagree with the idea of tax cuts stimulating economic activity and potentially increasing government revenue. That has happened. But, there are limits. And we currently have a major imbalance in revenue vs. spending.

I have a major problem with the idea that people are getting "their" money back when taxes are reduced. They aren't. "Their" money is going to pay for tanks and schools and roads. It has already been spent.

There is no difference right now between a student who gets a grant to go to college and a person getting a bigger check from the IRS. Both are just big government redistribution programs that skim money from the future. It's not free market at all.

Bush's "tax cuts" have actually been massive government spending programs.”

“When Bush claims to have reduced government, what he implys is that government is getting small, and we'll pay less taxes. That's BS, because all he is doing is privatizing government organizations, and then the government takes your tax dollars and pays the private company, who, in turn, use those profits to support Bush and his fascist buddies.

See, it's all neat and tidy, and nobody has to answer to anything.”

“So says BB.”

“NoProb, that's right, I said it, and since you don't have the intelligence or wherewithall to refute it, your snide remarks are filed under "NoProb is a moron".

Have a great Thanksgiving!”

“You are right. I'm just not intelligent enough to refute all the lies and hate that you spew out.”

“Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the following generations to pay is morally irresponsible. Excessive debt is a means by which governments oppress the people and waste their substance. No nation has a right to contract debt for periods longer than the majority contracting it can expect to live.

Thomas Jefferson
last edited: 7/08/05 12:35:26 PM”

“at a way to go bush-”

“If he didn't do that, you'd blame him for not being bipartisan.

The Dems don't want to decrease debt, they want to increase taxes. Bush was bipartisan in that he went half way on their spending wishes. He just didn't raise taxes too. It will balance out. Stop worrying that you're not paying too much taxes.

If I'm out of line, please tell us how much in ADDITIONAL taxes you send to the IRS every year since Bush took office. I'd love to see the numbers. Thanks.

(there is no law against that, so let's hear it)”

“Maybe, just maybe, the lefties should stop passing so many spending bills & promising everything to everyone just so they can get elected / re-elected and have a cushy pension for the rest of their lives!

So.. why don't I see anything about excessive spending posted here? How come it's "Bush is a bad guy" instead of "the libs are bad guys... they're spending $$ we don't have!"

Same question.. different perspective.”

“I remember when Reagan was on the block for the deficit.”

“Bush is not bipartisan”

“I know, BP. It's funny how we forgot about the massive Reagan debt increase when the colossal Bush debt came walking down the road.

Republicans=Big Government

Oh, but it's worth it if Bush nominates a hard-edged nominee to the court. Bummer if it turns out to be Gonzales and he upholds Roe. Prediction: It will be Gonzales. He will uphold Roe v. Wade and Republicans will not have to deal with the backlash once abortion is outlawed. The status quo helps Republicans.”