Obama asks to raise debt limit

[delldude]

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama has been increasing the national debt during his presidency by an average of $4.24 billion per day ($4,240,506,004.34) putting him on a pace to increase the national debt by $6.2 trillion ($6,195,379,272,340.74) by the end of his term on Jan. 20, 2013, according to the debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Time for Congressional posturing, chest thumping , and finally, hiding under a chair with tails between their legs.

 

[tech2101]

[The above chart] It's based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks -- like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. Those external events make a big difference in the deficit, and they are the major reason why deficits have increased faster in absolute terms during Obama's first two years than during the last two under Bush. (In a recession, tax revenues plunge, and government spending goes up - partly because of automatic programs like unemployment insurance, and partly in a deliberate attempt to keep the recession from getting worse.) If you want, you could even put the spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in this category: those were policy choices, but right or wrong they came in response to an external shock.

The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. That's why we call them "shocks." Governments can control their policies. And the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. You could argue that the stimulative effect of those cuts is worth it ("deficits don't matter" etc). But you cannot logically argue that we absolutely must reduce deficits, but that we absolutely must also preserve every penny of those tax cuts. Which I believe precisely describes the House Republican position.

After the jump, from a previous "The Chart That Should..." positing, an illustration of the respective roles of external shock and deliberate policy change in creating the deficit.



UPDATE: Many people have written to ask how the impact of the "Bush-era tax cuts," enacted under George W. Bush and extended under Barack Obama (with the help, as you will recall, of huge pressure from Senate Republicans), is divided between the two presidents. I don't know and have written the creators of the chart to ask. (They have responded to say: it indicates the legacy effects of the changes made by each Administration. For instance, neither Bush nor Obama is credited with the entire cost of Pentagon spending or entitlements, but only the changes his Administration made, up or down. By this logic the long-run effect of tax cuts initiated by Bush is assigned to him, as any long-run effect of savings he initiated would be too.)

But to me it doesn't matter. As I said above, the point of the chart really isn't partisan responsibility. It is the central role of those tax cuts in creating the deficit that is now the focus of such political attention. Call them the "Obama-Extended Tax Cuts" if you'd like: either way, a deficit plan that ignores them fails a basic logic, math, and coherence test.

Link

 

[delldude]

Obama on Pace to Borrow $6.2T in One Term—More Than All Presidents from Washington Through Clinton Combined

Back on topic...

 

[tech2101]

Obama on Pace to Borrow $6.2T in One Term—More Than All Presidents from Washington Through Clinton Combined

Back on topic...

Did you even try an read what was posted above? That is the reason for having to raise the debt limit.

That chart has colors and everything!

Duh.

 

[delldude]

Did you even try an read what was posted above? That is the reason for having to raise the debt limit.

That chart has colors and everything!

Duh.

Watch it Pal....I'm close to the edge......

9 trillion in the vid.....6 trillion on the Ocard?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Did you even try an read what was posted above? That is the reason for having to raise the debt limit.

That chart has colors and everything!

Duh.

Yes I did! As long as we have a fiat currency and we can manipulate interest rates and the money supply this debate will continue. Tech's view and that of the CBO is the typical Keynesian response to economics and the role Government plays in our economy.

Then we have the Neo-Con wing who while they can clearly count using really big numbers with which to bludgeon the other side with the fact remains is that Republicans & Democrats alike are big government stooges unwilling to do what's required to ensure long term financial viability for our nation.

So what we have now is a national political debate over who made the bigger hole in the side of the Titanic while ignoring the fact that the boat is SINKING! What we do know based upon historical evidence is that the current Debt to GDP ratio is unsustainable no matter who is POTUS.

The current tax base will not support the Federal Government at it's current size and borrowing is not the answer. We've already took a hit on our credit rating.

Raising taxes will NOT solve the problem either as the tax code in it's current form will not permit a higher tax burden and stimulate real growth. A government doesn't create jobs that are of value to society. I'd argue that a job "created" by taxing each of us, then linding that same money to say Solyndra is no job at all as Solyndra was not truly a viable enterprise. What Solyndra was is a company with political connections and once again we've been shown how crony capitalism works to the detriment of all.

Going forward, Fiscal Conservatism is a must, to the exclusion of all else. All sacred cows must be evaluated and a very simple test given. "Is it nice or is it necessary"? Nice goes in the dung heap. For example, we survived quite nicely for over 200 years without a US Department of Education. The Rural Electrification Program has largely achieved its goal as something like 99.7% of all houses have electricity. Public Broadcasting, Planned Parenthood, NEA and a host of other worthy endeavors are nice, however they aren't necessary for our survival as a nation. Billions if not Trillions need to be cut from Defense. While being the worlds Policeman is nice it's not necessary for our protection. Some nations will actually have to pay for their own defense going forward. Tough Darts

With that brief example we see why it's so difficult to pare down the size of government and live within our means

 

[tech2101]

Watch it Pal....I'm close to the edge......

Oh, snap. Please don't break out the punctuation gun.

 

[777 fixer]

Looking at that chart I can't help but think the GOP has deluded themselves into thinking that all they have to do in order to reduce the deficit is to cut NPR, PPH, NEA etc.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Looking at that chart I can't help but think the GOP has deluded themselves into thinking that all they have to do in order to reduce the deficit is to cut NPR, PPH, NEA etc.

Well the GOP may well have deluded themselves as they are no less part of the problem. There is significant blame to go around.

We've got three areas that suck up most of the budget, Military, Social Security, MediCaid/Care. Frankly programs like NEA, PBS and such combined are pretty much a nit when compared to the big three.

The country is in the same predicament that many airlines found themselves in.

We need to cut costs dramatically. However we need to have a place for all those displaced Government workers and ex military to work and contribute to society. So cutting costs is only half the equation. If we don't reform the tax code we're sunk no matter the cuts. The tax code needs to be pro growth in every way. We get the economy humming along revenue will go up, the budget will be easier to balance, the Debt can be reduced and we can get our credit rating back.

 

[delldude]

Looking at that chart I can't help but think the GOP has deluded themselves into thinking that all they have to do in order to reduce the deficit is to cut NPR, PPH, NEA etc.

They ought to grow a set and borrow RP's hit list......

 

[SparrowHawk]

View attachment 9302

 

[tech2101]

View attachment 9302

That is the best you can come up with?

Are you trying to best some of the other cartoon characters who post here?

 

[xUT]

View attachment 9302

DOH!

 

[SparrowHawk]

That is the best you can come up with?

Are you trying to best some of the other cartoon characters who post here?

The laundry list of is quite long, It's far easier to post a cartoon then to post a the entire list.

6.2 Trillion in new debt
Record high unemployment
Commodity Inflation caused by QE 1 & 2 resulting in high gas prices and staggering increases in food cost that hurt the working poor the most. This is equivalent to raising taxes across the board, the difference being that the Parasite Political Class can't redistribute, so they engage in class warfare demanding the so called "rich" pay their fair share which when asked what percentage represents a "Fair share" all we have heard are crickets.

Failure to repeal the Patriot Act
Open support of SOPA
Passage of NDAA
Failure to withdraw from Iraq as promised

The Head Maggot has a despicable track record. For someone who taught Constitutional Law he certainly has learned how to pervert it. Need more? Just ask. I haven't even gotten into the Chicago style crony capitalism yet or the bailouts. So little server space and such a big parasite.

That more to your liking?