GOP Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion During Bush Presidency

[tlmorg02]

That being said we will be living a Charles Dicken's tale. Let the chips fall as they may. Should have never bailed out wall-st.

Before long, if the gap between the wealthest 1% and the rest of the nation continues to grow, we will be in a Dicken's novel anyways.

 

[ksu_aviator]

During Bush Presidency, Current GOP Leaders Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion

Think Progress- By Travis Waldron at 11:49 am

After pushing the government to brink of shutdown last week, Republican Congressional leaders are now preparing to push America to the edge of default by refusing to increase the nation’s debt limit without first getting Democrats to concede to large spending cuts.

But while the four Republicans in Congressional leadership positions are attempting to hold the increase hostage now, they combined to vote for a debt limit increase 19 times during the presidency of George W. Bush. In doing so, they increased the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion.

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:

Current GOP Leaders Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion During Bush Presidency « Suzie-Q's Truth and Justice Blog

So what gives?? Why the sudden worry about the debt and the debt limit?? Is it just because there is a democrat in office?? Talk about hypocrisy..

What gives is that it was wrong then and it is wrong now. We voted out the old guard, voted in a new command and the people have selected leaders that would not raise the debt ceiling. If you have a problem with that, take it to the polls.

 

[tlmorg02]

I would agree with raising taxes if we weren't seeing unemployment go back and forth right now. When could set a goal that when GPD increases to x% or some other marker of a growing economy that taxes would raise at that point...but I don't think it would be wise to raise them right now.

Why? Are those tax cuts for the richest Americans creating jobs? Last I checked it was still the upper Middle Class that make under $250k that were still the number one founders of new business. Seems to me all that large corporations do is gobble-up all they can.

 

[tessaesque]

Why? Are those tax cuts for the richest Americans creating jobs? Last I checked it was still the upper Middle Class that make under $250k that were still the number one founders of new business. Seems to me all that large corporations do is gobble-up all they can.

Removing tax cuts doesn't just affect those above 250k (which I don't consider "rich). Also, historically, raising taxes hasn't benefitted the economy. So when the economy is struggling, why do it?

 

[liblady]

I would agree with raising taxes if we weren't seeing unemployment go back and forth right now. When could set a goal that when GPD increases to x% or some other marker of a growing economy that taxes would raise at that point...but I don't think it would be wise to raise them right now.

see.......no compromise. that's the biggest issue.

 

[tessaesque]

see.......no compromise. that's the biggest issue.

What do you mean, no compromise? I don't even like our current tax system. But I feel like to pay down the debt I could consider a tax increase once the economy starts to rebound significantly. I would be supportive of a bill right now, today, that sets a specific point at which they would go into affect (i.e once we've seen x-amount of growth over a consistent period of x-weeks or x-months). Just like I would support any DOD cut that doesn't threaten the lives or protections of soldiers currently deployed.

 

[ksu_aviator]

i would agree, but if we are going to bite the bullet, we all need to bite the bullet. raise taxes, cut spending, be responsible. NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE. reduce fraud in entitlement programs.

Raising taxes won't work. Every time taxes have been raised, spending went up with it. The old tactics are done. We cut spending and cut spending only.

 

[tlmorg02]

Removing tax cuts doesn't just affect those above 250k (which I don't consider "rich). Also, historically, raising taxes hasn't benefitted the economy. So when the economy is struggling, why do it?

Because the economy cannot recover while the government holds large debt. And while I agree we need to make cuts and not add to the deficit, the government cannot continue under lower revenue. What I cannot believe is how people have forgotten how like some 400+ economists opposed the Bush tax cuts when they were originally put into place.

 

[tlmorg02]

Raising taxes won't work. Every time taxes have been raised, spending went up with it. The old tactics are done. We cut spending and cut spending only.

What about when Reagan raised taxes?

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Those who oppose higher taxes and are fed up with record levels of U.S. debt may pine for Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of lower taxes and smaller government.

But it's worth considering just what Reagan did -- and didn't do -- as lawmakers grapple with many of the same issues that their 1980s counterparts faced: a deep recession, high deficits and a rip-roaring political divide over taxes.

Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period.

That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984. That would reduce "bracket creep" since the high inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s meant incomes rose very fast, pushing taxpayers into ever higher brackets even though the real value of their income hadn't changed.

The 1981 bill also made certain business deductions more generous.

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Despite the aggressive tax cutting, Reagan couldn't ignore the budget deficit, which was burgeoning.

After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

So as you can see, even the "great" Reagan had to come to terms with the fact that slashing the txes of the rich hurt the economy more than help because it allows the deficit to swell.

 

[ksu_aviator]

What about when Reagan raised taxes?

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010



So as you can see, even the "great" Reagan had to come to terms with the fact that slashing the txes of the rich hurt the economy more than help because it allows the deficit to swell.

They also raised spending...thank you for proving my point.

 

[tlmorg02]

They also raised spending...thank you for proving my point.

Yes but most of Reagan's spending increases fell under the defense budget, just as GW's. You can't be a hawk and reduce spending. Well you can if all you want to cut is those programs that benefit the working poor and the Middle Class.

 

[tessaesque]

Yes but most of Reagan's spending increases fell under the defense budget, just as GW's. You can't be a hawk and reduce spending. Well you can if all you want to cut is those programs that benefit the working poor and the Middle Class.

What programs benefit the middle class that don't benefit all classes?

 

[ksu_aviator]

Yes but most of Reagan's spending increases fell under the defense budget, just as GW's. You can't be a hawk and reduce spending. Well you can if all you want to cut is those programs that benefit the working poor and the Middle Class.

Who said the defense budget was untouchable?

 

[Sgt Meowenstein]

I can't have a serious conversation with you when you make stupid generalizations, so I'm ignoring the bold.

That said, Obama and the dems recognized that raising taxes through eliminating Bush's tax cuts would be bad for the economy because it would take away money people might have spent or invested and putting into the goverment's piggy bank. The most direct way to boost the economy is to put money directly into it through purchase. Government stimulus money didn't fix the economy. Most of it went to banks and large multi-national companies who didn't inject into the economy; they used it to stop themselves from going completely under water. The hope of Obama was to encourage banks to generate low-interest loans and get the housing market going again, which didn't happen. The 250k cuts weren't the only ones expiring, they were the only ones that were being heavily debated...so I can see the confusion there.

Bull****. Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because Republicans were holding unemployment benefits hostage. That is the ONLY reason he agreed to TEMPORARILY extend them. That's pretty common knowledge. I don't know where you're getting your info; but it's dead wrong.

 

[cpwill]

I agree with your sentiments, however I greatly disagree with GOP thoughts of what should be cut. They only target programs for the poor, public media, and other small potatoes that protect the billions of dollars the government hands out to big oil and the lot.

here you are dramatically incorrect. firstly, when you have an annual income of $25,000; and your wife decides she wants to write a check for $14,000,0000 to the local charity; canceling the check isn't "taking money away from the poor", it's not spending money you don't have. Our entitlements are in a very similar position - we have written a check that we have no way of ever hoping to be able to cash. The unfunded liabilities of the United States America for Medicare and Social Security alone are larger than The Combined GDP of Every Country on the Face of the Planet. So it's not that Republicans want to cut spending on the poor, or only target the poor, it's that Republicans are currently the only one on Capital Hill right now willing to admit that we don't have $14 million in our checking account to cover that check for Red Cross.

They have not called for any DOD cuts

actually the Republican House 2012 budget cuts out $178 Billion a year from the DOD .

no cuts to corporate welfare

actually the Republican House 2012 budget completely ended all corporate welfare .

yet continue to pretend that these small programs are eating the nation up.

they aren't small - the entitlements are massive and growing at a dizzying clip.

Neither side is really going to do much with Medicare/Medicad or Social Security because whoever does, as Paul Ryan has learned, will be crucified by the public.

Republicans remain pretty united behind the effort to reform Medicaid and Medicare - and are still asking the President to enact the very commission that the law demands he do in order to fix Social Security.

and Ryan hasn't been crucified by the public - though it's certainly been a topic of debate. in fact, more Americans in every cohort age 30 and up prefer Ryan's plan to the Presidents'.

However, what amuses me most is that government leaders pretend that entitlements are the biggest piece of the pie, yet we will never really know what the DOD budget actually is because most of it is blacked out and top secret.

:roll: I would love to see your evidence that the majority of DOD spending is, in fact, TS.

 

[Sgt Meowenstein]

Who said the defense budget was untouchable?

Republicans, apparently. As far as I know, Republicans aren't proposing any cuts to defense. At least, it's not in Ryan's holy grail budget that's going nowhere.

 

[cpwill]

Ummm?? Just asking here?? But I think your graph there is showing the deficit and not the debt.. It is showing a surplus in year 2000 and 2001.. Which would most certianly make it the deficit.. So what exactly does that have to do with republicans raising the debt ceiling 19 times??

....you really can't figure out how the deficit might contribute to the debt???

 

[cpwill]

Republicans, apparently. As far as I know, Republicans aren't proposing any cuts to defense. At least, it's not in Ryan's holy grail budget that's going nowhere.

Actually there are. Specifically he cuts $178 Billion in defense spending, the cuts identified by Secretary Gates as doable - then he reinvests $100 Bn back and puts $78 Bn into deficit reduction.

 

[cpwill]

Bull****. Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because Republicans were holding unemployment benefits hostage.

isn't it interesting how "compromise" has become "holding things hostage"?

 

[tessaesque]

Bull****. Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because Republicans were holding unemployment benefits hostage. That is the ONLY reason he agreed to TEMPORARILY extend them. That's pretty common knowledge. I don't know where you're getting your info; but it's dead wrong.

"But he said that he did not want to risk the expiration of the middle-class tax cuts in the likely event of a lengthy impasse between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

"It would be a grave injustice to let taxes go up for these people," President Obama said of middle-class workers."

Link here

Doesn't take a genius to realize why it was a bad idea to raise taxes on the "middle class".

 

[ksu_aviator]

Republicans, apparently. As far as I know, Republicans aren't proposing any cuts to defense. At least, it's not in Ryan's holy grail budget that's going nowhere.

I'm going to bet that the final bill will have defense spending cuts. After all, you don't start a negotiation with your final offer. Ryan's budget eliminates HCR and a large chunk of Medicare. They will give on a lot of that and give on defense spending cuts to get the bill passed. It won't be as good as ideal, but it will be better than nothing.

Do remember, though; Medicare, Social Security, SCHIPS, and all other social programs are unconstitutional, so it is only right to focus the spending on the constitutional programs.

 

[tlmorg02]

here you are dramatically incorrect. firstly, when you have an annual income of $25,000; and your wife decides she wants to write a check for $14,000,0000 to the local charity; canceling the check isn't "taking money away from the poor", it's not spending money you don't have. Our entitlements are in a very similar position - we have written a check that we have no way of ever hoping to be able to cash. The unfunded liabilities of the United States America for Medicare and Social Security alone are larger than The Combined GDP of Every Country on the Face of the Planet. So it's not that Republicans want to cut spending on the poor, or only target the poor, it's that Republicans are currently the only one on Capital Hill right now willing to admit that we don't have $14 million in our checking account to cover that check for Red Cross.



actually the Republican House 2012 budget cuts out $178 Billion a year from the DOD .



actually the Republican House 2012 budget completely ended all corporate welfare .



they aren't small - the entitlements are massive and growing at a dizzying clip.



Republicans remain pretty united behind the effort to reform Medicaid and Medicare - and are still asking the President to enact the very commission that the law demands he do in order to fix Social Security.

and Ryan hasn't been crucified by the public - though it's certainly been a topic of debate. in fact, more Americans in every cohort age 30 and up prefer Ryan's plan to the Presidents'.



:roll: I would love to see your evidence that the majority of DOD spending is, in fact, TS.

While I cannot find the exact percentage, this article makes a good go at it: US Forces 'black' budget = 2nd biggest military on Earth ? The Register

Also, since you like proof, show me something to back-up your numerous claims, like the ending of corporate welfare. Seems to me the GOP just blocked a vote on ending Oil Welfare in the Senate.

Also, I think you have zero proof that Ryan's plan would touch Defense.

 

[tlmorg02]

isn't it interesting how "compromise" has become "holding things hostage"?

Tell me, since you are in Japan, what do you think about their healthcare system that rates much higher than ours according to the World Health Organization. Do you get medical treatment under the system.

 

[tlmorg02]

Actually there are. Specifically he cuts $178 Billion in defense spending, the cuts identified by Secretary Gates as doable - then he reinvests $100 Bn back and puts $78 Bn into deficit reduction.

So he only cuts 78billion?

 

[Sgt Meowenstein]

Link here

Doesn't take a genius to realize why it was a bad idea to raise taxes on the "middle class".

You're right. I forgot the middle-class. He agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because Republicans wouldn't otherwise agree to extend unemployment benefits, and he didn't want taxes to rise on the middle-class. But that doesn't mean that Obama agrees with the Republican view that taxes shouldn't be raised on people earning over 250k per year. Obama has made it quite clear how he feels about that. To say otherwise is just being dishonest.