Harry Reid on Hiking Debt Limit to $18.794T

nightflight · Nov 8, 2012

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Wednesday that if the $16.394 trillion current legal limit on the federal government's debt must be raised in the next few months by another $2.4 trillion, Well raise it."
That would set the debt limit at $18.794 trillion.

Harry Reid on Hiking Debt Limit to $18.794T: âWeâll Raise Itâ | CNSNews.com

This time they really, really mean it! This far and no more.

Jeffwhosoever · Nov 8, 2012

Yes, let's kill our children's future so we can live like kings ourselves. I'd agree to raising the debt limit to $18,794,000,000,001.

Thunder Peel · Nov 8, 2012

Why can't we elect officials who realize that you can't spend money to get out of debt? I don't understand why this simple concept is so foreign to them. How about cutting some of those wasteful government and social programs that cost more to maintain than they're worth.

Oh, but that's right: then some voters might actually have to work for what they have and depend on themselves. We couldn't possibly allow that.

nightflight · Nov 8, 2012

Why even have a "debt limit"? Isn't it just a charade since you know they will just meet it later and call for a new "limit"?

Loudmouth · Nov 8, 2012

Thunder Peel said:
Why can't we elect officials who realize that you can't spend money to get out of debt? I don't understand why this simple concept is so foreign to them. How about cutting some of those wasteful government and social programs that cost more to maintain than they're worth.

Oh, but that's right: then some voters might actually have to work for what they have and depend on themselves. We couldn't possibly allow that.

The lessons learned from the Great Depression are that massive government spending could have lessened the economic collapse. In response to a massive recession Herbert Hoover shrank government spending. The result was the Great Depression.

No one is trying to spend their way out of debt. We are trying to inject money back into the economy to prevent a massive depression. That has been the plan from the very start. So debt or Great Depression? Which is better?

Blayz · Nov 8, 2012

How is it still possible the republicans on this board to not understand the concept of the US debt limit?

Thank your God you didn't get the presidency.

Jeffwhosoever · Nov 8, 2012

Loudmouth said:
The lessons learned from the Great Depression are that massive government spending could have lessened the economic collapse. In response to a massive recession Herbert Hoover shrank government spending. The result was the Great Depression.

No one is trying to spend their way out of debt. We are trying to inject money back into the economy to prevent a massive depression. That has been the plan from the very start. So debt or Great Depression? Which is better?

Let's see your citations to peer reviewed studies that back up your cause and effect relationships.

Loudmouth · Nov 8, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
Let's see your citations to peer reviewed studies that back up your cause and effect relationships.

What pulled us out of the Great Depression was massive government spending which did accrue debt. I don't think it takes much imagination to understand that it would have lessened the Great Depression if it was done earlier.

But more importantly, this is the philosophy that Obama campaigned on and what he implemented. He chose Bernanke for this very reason. Bernanke studied the Great Depression extensively, and his findings were that you had to loosen money up in banks so that credit could flow. You can read more about it here:

Ben Bernanke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The government supplied money so that the banks would feel safer in lending money.

To claim that Democrats are trying to spend their way out of debt is a massive misrepresentation of what is actually going on. They are trying to prevent a massive depression by running up a debt. We can argue back and forth about how effective that is, but we should at least agree on why we are increasing the debt.

Like I said, do we want to hand our children a Great Depression, or a big debt?

Wolseley · Nov 8, 2012

Thunder Peel said:
Why can't we elect officials who realize that you can't spend money to get out of debt?

Because they won't let us:

The Two-Party Monopoly | Fox News

Loudmouth said:
What pulled us out of the Great Depression was massive government spending which did accrue debt.

Not really. All Roosevelt's programs did was give people some relief and prevented a revolution. And it gave them some hope that things would eventually get better.

What pulled us out of the Depression was a little guy in Germany with a funny mustache and a harsh voice who decided to invade Poland. England needed war material, so we geared up to sell it to them. And then of course the German guy's buddies from Japan decided to bomb us....the rest is history.

Rion · Nov 8, 2012

Loudmouth said:
The lessons learned from the Great Depression are that massive government spending could have lessened the economic collapse. In response to a massive recession Herbert Hoover shrank government spending. The result was the Great Depression.

No one is trying to spend their way out of debt. We are trying to inject money back into the economy to prevent a massive depression. That has been the plan from the very start. So debt or Great Depression? Which is better?

Actually, FDR just extended the depression. That's why we took so long to recover compared to everyone else.

HerbieHeadley · Nov 8, 2012

nightflight said:
Harry Reid on Hiking Debt Limit to $18.794T: âWeâll Raise Itâ | CNSNews.com

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Wednesday that if the $16.394 trillion current legal limit on the federal government's debt must be raised in the next few months by another $2.4 trillion, Well raise it."
That would set the debt limit at $18.794 trillion.

Click to expand...

This time they really, really mean it! This far and no more.

Did anyone ask Harry Reid why?

Jeffwhosoever · Nov 8, 2012

Loudmouth said:
What pulled us out of the Great Depression was massive government spending which did accrue debt. I don't think it takes much imagination to understand that it would have lessened the Great Depression if it was done earlier.

But more importantly, this is the philosophy that Obama campaigned on and what he implemented. He chose Bernanke for this very reason. Bernanke studied the Great Depression extensively, and his findings were that you had to loosen money up in banks so that credit could flow. You can read more about it here:

Ben Bernanke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The government supplied money so that the banks would feel safer in lending money.

To claim that Democrats are trying to spend their way out of debt is a massive misrepresentation of what is actually going on. They are trying to prevent a massive depression by running up a debt. We can argue back and forth about how effective that is, but we should at least agree on why we are increasing the debt.

Like I said, do we want to hand our children a Great Depression, or a big debt?

Wow, some citation. Ben Bernacke on Wikipedia. LOL. FAIL.

trunks2k · Nov 8, 2012

nightflight said:
Why even have a "debt limit"? Isn't it just a charade since you know they will just meet it later and call for a new "limit"?

Because it's a technicality. Arguing over the debt limit is a red herring.

Basically a long time ago, Congress had to approve individual bonds for individual projects. Congress would approve spending money on a given project, but if there wasn't enough money available, they would have to go and approve a bond for that project. Doing that for each individual project becomes a cumbersome and time consuming process.

So they decided to tell the treasury it can issue bonds as needed for whatever bills the government had to pay. It saves time in congress and allows funding to be more flexible (i.e. money from a bond doesn't HAVE to be spent on X, if we have the cash on hand for X, we can use the bond for Y instead) However, Congress couldn't just let the treasury issue an infinite number of bonds since Congress is in charge of giving the OK for bonds. So it set a limit on the number of bonds that can be issued at a time. That is the debt limit.

The debt limit is not what we should be arguing over. There's debt the US gov't owes that has to be paid for. If we need to raise it to issue the necessary bonds, then we need to do it. We shouldn't be arguing over that.

Where the concern is the annual budget so we won't have to issue as many bonds in the first place. That is what should be argued.

Jeffwhosoever · Nov 8, 2012

trunks2k said:
Because it's a technicality. Arguing over the debt limit is a red herring.

Basically a long time ago, Congress had to approve individual bonds for individual projects. Congress would approve spending money on a given project, but if there wasn't enough money available, they would have to go and approve a bond for that project. Doing that for each individual project becomes a cumbersome and time consuming process.

So they decided to tell the treasury it can issue bonds as needed for whatever bills the government had to pay. It saves time in congress and allows funding to be more flexible (i.e. money from a bond doesn't HAVE to be spent on X, if we have the cash on hand for X, we can use the bond for Y instead) However, Congress couldn't just let the treasury issue an infinite number of bonds since Congress is in charge of giving the OK for bonds. So it set a limit on the number of bonds that can be issued at a time. That is the debt limit.

The debt limit is not what we should be arguing over. There's debt the US gov't owes that has to be paid for. If we need to raise it to issue the necessary bonds, then we need to do it. We shouldn't be arguing over that.

Where the concern is the annual budget. That is what should be argued.

Like Obama's last 4 budgets?

SimplyMe · Nov 8, 2012

Jeffwhosoever said:
Like Obama's last 4 budgets?

Exactly... and I don't see him having any more success getting a budget passed in the next 4 years.

SnowCal · Nov 8, 2012

How else can we avert the fiscal cliff?

You people simultaneously want to avoid doing anything that will bring the budget into balance but you demand that it be done.

Harry Reid on Hiking Debt Limit to $18.794T

Veteran

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

You don't eat a peacock until it's cooked.

Veteran

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Contributor

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Annuit Cœptis

North American Energy Independence Now!

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Contributor

Faithful Servant & Seminary Student

Senior Veteran

50 Cent Party

Similar threads