U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urged Congress to raise the national debt limit, now at 8.965 trillion dollars, saying the country may be unable to pay its bills this fall.
“I am writing to request that Congress raise the statutory debt limit as soon as possible,” said Paulson in a letter to Congress. He estimated that the government is likely to bump into the statutory debt limit in early October.
The national debt limit has been boosted several times since President George W. Bush took office in 2001. The last time was in March 2006 when [rubberstamp] Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling by 781 billion dollars.
In February last year, the Bush administration said it had begun to use a government employee pension fund to avoid hitting the then national debt limit of 8.184 trillion dollars.
This is getting lots of coverage abroad – especially in China where Paulson is handing out free advice on how to run their economy.
Bush has no concern over BALANCE budget.
that is the way this office has worked, for to long…
He has stripped Money to every department and closed offices.
THE NEXT GUY, is going to have MAJOR headaches over,
Fixing the balance,
Paying BACK the loans,
Bring up the gov, so it can do its job.
FDA had to close 100 offices…
So who’s going to say they voted for Bush knowing that he would put the country in this much debt? Hell half this much! C’mon guys you were something close to half the voters, where are you?
Sea lawyer? More like a Philadelphia Lawyer – if you know the song.
Just out of idle curiousity – because I have little or nothing invested in Europe – but, anyone up on why it is the United States, this leading Western economic power, can’t do anything but bury itself deeper in debt on balance of trade with China – but, the Euros, from Germany (their #1) on down, generally have a positive balance of trade with China?
Do they know how to do something we don’t?
#11
You clearly never took economics. Raising taxes on the rich does not increase tax revenue. In fact, it generally does the opposite. The simple reason is that the rich can hire armies of lawyers that do nothing but help them avoid paying taxes. That’s why you have someone like Mrs. Kerry paying an effective tax rate of 12%. The problem is that people still do not understand the difference between wealth and income.You are only taxed on the later.
#23, I don’t know? How much of the German standard of living consists of having cheap plastic junk bought at the local equivalent of Wal-Mart? Please, don’t bother searching your imagination for an answer, it’s really not that important.
So, interestingly enough, I managed to find this report with a simple google search.
http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL31403.pdf
According to it, in 2005, the EU had a deficit with China of $121 Billion (their numbers, China claims lower) compared to $201 Billion for the United States (our numbers, China claims lower). More interestingly, Germany’s deficit within the EU is the highest at $23 Billion. I know, I know, there is something to be said for scale – and we are obviously working with a debt much larger than that of paltry little Germany’s. Even if when you consider that Germany’s population is only about 28% the size of the United States, it still doesn’t look good for us and our love of all things cheap and plastic. Sadly again, it does look as though Europe, when taken as a whole, fares much better in comparison to poor old us if you account for population, than if you separate out the “big players” of their little federation (side note: I wonder what Hungary’s trade deficit with China was in 2005. I suppose I could look it up if I really cared…).
But, anyways, I would suggest to you that in the future, before you grace us with more of these rhetorical questions of yours, that you at least start from a valid premise, and perhaps having numbers that somewhat match your claims could help too.
Well, take it easy.
25—Gee Whiz, arguing on point to the heart and basis of the argument using confirmable facts??? Doesn’t sound like much of a sea lawyer to me. ((aka – a statement)).
I’ll try to make it simpler for you #25 – Germany has a trade surplus in general and specifically with China. It’s growing. We don’t.
Check out Bloomberg, http://tinyurl.com/2j4s6b
True, the whole Euro crowd is dragged down by our 51st state. But, then, Blair imitates more than a few of Bush’s policies.
Your fear of “rhetorical” questions – I have no idea why you thought it was so – has pushed me into confirming what I would have guessed. Germany’s healthier relationship with Chinese trade is grounded in their technology exports. Remember those? http://tinyurl.com/396a82
In fact, there was quite a good segment on German Journal, just today, on German exports of diesel engines – not just in Volkswagens; but, 10,000 horsepower critters from M.A.N. – who has orders 2 years out.
I think its high time we enacted a:
WAR ON DEBT!!
not that it would do much good:
We’re losing the war on illegal immigration (aside from the mexican wall)
We’re losing the war on terrorism (despite what BushCo says)
We’ve lost the war on drugs (stupid idea anyway)
We’ve lost the war on crime (rat-ta-tat-tat in da hood)
Any others I’m forgetting?
Wow, what a lovely win-win situation Bush is in.
If they raise the debt ceiling, he continues his rampant spending and hands the problem off to the next president.
If they don’t raise the debt ceiling, he has the justification he needs to start cutting those nasty little (New Deal) social programs that rich people hate paying for.
What a fucking bastard.
#24 – Thomas,
Are you sure you read my post?
Anyway, I’m glad to see there are still some believers in Reaganomics. I assume then that you are one of the beneficiaries of Gush-Up-Economics? For the rest of us, Reagan really dramatically damaged the middle class of this country with such thinking. Anyway, it’s kind of childish to make the statements you’ve made. It implies that we should just say that anyone making over a certain amount, yes income over a certain amount, should not pay any taxes at all.
Perhaps you should consider writing articles for the Fox Street Post now.
#19 Actually I bought a new truck but that isn’t the point. I have been around long enough to know that I personally do better when a Republican (conservative type one each) president is in charge. I tried to buy my first home under Carter. What a nightmare that 4 years turned out to be.
I see taxes cut and incoming tax revenues go up but at the same time I see the deficit getting worse. Why? We have a Congress that still thinks all that money is theirs to do with as they please. It’s our money but people like Jack Murtha seem to think that it is his personal piggy bank with earmarks.
I get sick and tired of seeing my money go to bullshit like bridges and roads to nowhere or how to artificially inseminate a mosquito.
Don’t think the last few years with Bush haven’t pissed me off. I don’t like the Patriot Act (it isn’t) or FISA or the NSA (or ATT for that matter). It has pissed me off to the point where I voted against Republicans in the last local elections.
Now where’s that “new” kool aid????
#31
Call me a perv, but I’d actually like to see someone artificially inseminate a mosquito! Lulu – get the popcorn!
#31 – Steve,
If you’re trying to sell people on the fiscal conservativeness of Republicans, you might want to selectively avoid mentioning the Bridge to Nowhere. It’s a purely Republican project.
http://tinyurl.com/dem6f
#33 – Misanthropic Scott,
Nope, my point is that I do better when there is a fiscal conservative in the Whitehouse. I don’t two two shits about WHICH party is building a road/bridge/colon to nowhere I just get tired of them doing it with our money.
Republican or Democrat, I have yet to see one who was honest and that could keep from spending their ass off with our money.
#31, Steve,
It has pissed me off to the point where I voted against Republicans in the last local elections.
Halleluja !!! A convert !!!
*
Why point out only Jack Murtha’s name? The Bridge to Nowhere, was Don Young and Ted Steven’s doing, both Republicans. You didn’t mention any of Murths’s sponsored earmarks. Isn’t that a little disingenuous. Were you trying to insinuate Murtha had something to do with the Bridge to Nowhere? What are his earmarks and are any of them justified? BtoN is bad.
Research into mosquito control is good; most of mankind’s deadliest diseases are carried by mosquitoes. Mosquito research is good.
So let’s get this into perspective. You falsely attribute one ear mark then miss the point of a second. But, both are bullshit. Let me guess, you are wildly in favor of a huge spending increase for the military, higher subsidies for farmers not farming, more tax incentives and exploratory grants to the oil industry, and more free research for drug companies.
#35
I point Murtha out because I dislike him and his name popped into my head. As for Stevens if he did the BtoN then he is just as bad. I wasn’t picking on one party at the expense of the other since I am pissed off at both.
As for budgets I am for the troops to get a pay raise but not all the crap the military wants and no subsidies to the farmers period or grants to drug cos or oil companies either one.
#36
meh — under hw bush i had to work in a warehouse even with a degree in compsci, lots of people were outta work because the economy was still rattled by the s&l crisis caused by reagan’s shady bank policies, under clinton, tech took off and things got better, the debt reagan/bush racked up went away and i was proud to be an american
now i find myself again in fear that the national debt will suck the wind right out of the economy.
face it man — republicans are bad for the economy, the environment, our constitution, our morals (torture is now good), and our freedom
they give people each a few hundred bucks and in return they get total control — what a bargain
p.s. — please spare me about slick willie’s philandering — you can be a freakin virgin and still be a liar, a thief, and a murderer
#30
Again, you are showing your ignorance about economics. It has nothing to do with whether Congress is Constitutionally authorized to impose a progressive tax. It has everything to do with whether it is effective in increasing tax revenue. Raising taxes on the rich encourges them to move their money into investments that are shielded from taxes. The Reagan years and now the Bush years have proven that to be true. You act as if you think that economics is a zero sum game: if the rich get richer then everyone else must be getting poorer and that is simply not true. The middle class improved tremendously during the Reagan years because the overall economy improved.
I never said the rich should not pay any taxes. However there is an optimal tax rate above which you decrease the tax revenue because the benefit gained by putting money into non-taxable investments exceeds that of taxable ones. That means less taxable money available and thus less tax revenue.