Senate permits national debt to grow to $9 trillion

hevusa

Former Staff
Feb 2005
7,705
6
#1
Senate permits national debt to grow to $9 trillion



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted Thursday to allow the national debt to swell to nearly $9 trillion, preventing a first-ever default on U.S. Treasury notes.



The bill passed by a 52-48 vote. The increase to $9 trillion represents about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.



The measure allows the government to pay for the war in Iraq and finance Medicare and other big federal programs without raising taxes. It passed hours before the House was expected to approve another $91 billion to fund the war in Iraq and provide more aid to hurricane victims.



The partisan vote also came as the Senate continued debate on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year that would produce a $359 billion deficit for the fiscal year beginning October 1.



The debt limit will increase by $781 billion. It's the fourth such move -- increasing the debt limit by a total of $3 trillion -- since Bush took office five years ago.



The vote came a day after Treasury Secretary John Snow warned lawmakers that action was "critical to provide certainty to financial markets that the integrity of the obligations of the United States will not be compromised."



On Thursday, Treasury postponed next week's auction of three-month and six-month bills pending Senate action, though the move was likely to be quickly reversed given the Senate's vote.



The present limit on the debt is $8.2 trillion. With the budget deficit expected to approach $400 billion for both this year and next, another increase in the debt limit will almost certainly be required next year.



The debt limit increase is an unhappy necessity -- the alternative would be a disastrous first-ever default on U.S. obligations -- that greatly overshadowed a mostly symbolic, weeklong debate on the GOP's budget resolution.



Democrats blast Bush

Democrats blasted the bill, saying it was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by Bush, who came to office when the government was running record surpluses.



"When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records," said Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada. "The three largest deficits in our nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch."



Only a handful of Republicans spoke in favor of the measure as a mostly empty Senate chamber conducted a brief debate Wednesday evening.



Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Bush's tax cuts account for just 30 percent of the debt limit increases required during his presidency. Revenue losses from a recession and new spending to combat terrorism and for the war in Iraq are also responsible, he said.



As for the $781 billion increase in the debt limit, Grassley said: "It is necessary to preserve the full faith and credit of the federal government."



Before approving the bill, Republicans rejected by a 55-44 vote an amendment by Max Baucus, D-Montana, to mandate a Treasury study on the economic consequences of foreigners holding an increasing portion of the U.S. debt.



At present, foreign countries, central banks and other institutions hold more than one-fourth of the debt, but that percentage is growing rapidly.



Following the debt limit vote Thursday, the Senate was expected to vote late in the day on the budget plan, a nonbinding measure proposing tax and spending guidelines for the next five years.



Specter seeks spending increases

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, appears poised to win an increase of $7 billion in new and real funding for education and health research. The $7 billion would effectively be used to break Bush's $873 billion budget cap for 2007, which represents the most significant vestige of fiscal discipline remaining in Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg's budget.



The underlying Senate budget plan is notable chiefly for dropping Bush's proposed cuts to Medicare and for abandoning his efforts to expand health savings accounts or pass legislation to make permanent his 2001 tax cut bill.



Unlike last year, when Congress passed a bill trimming $39 billion from the deficit through curbs to Medicaid, Medicare and student loan subsidies, Senate GOP leaders have abandoned plans to pass another round of cuts to so-called mandatory programs.



But Gregg's measure re-ignites last year's battle over allowing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, since it would let Senate leaders bring an ANWR drilling measure to the floor under rules blocking a filibuster by opponents.



Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.





http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/16/congress.debt.ap/index.html
 
Jan 2005
6,711
30
Massachusetts
#2
Ouch...I really think this war is just costing us way too much money and is just a benefit to mainly the Iraqi people. They are now allowed to vote, they don't have to suffer under the rule of a dictator, more schools are being built, some Iraqi people are being trained as soldiers, the list goes on. Their are just many good things going on from us being over there...but I honestly think it's not worth every American's expense (taxes) to be used to benefit another nation. Why not the starving children in Africa? Why not other nations who could use the help?



I think it was right to take out Saddam and look for Bin Laden, but not right to benefit another nation to the point where they can have a democracy, elections, etc..



I don't know, it's just very difficult to think about.
 

hevusa

Former Staff
Feb 2005
7,705
6
#3
Every dollar may go to waste if the country errupts into civil war which is considered to be on the edge.
 
Nov 2005
9,002
3,483
California
#4
Maybe we should just start referring to the Iraqi people as being on "welfare", and that will shift some of the conservatives' position on the whole issue...



After all, why should I support the Iraqi people who aren't paying taxes and seem unable to support/sustain their own government...

<end sarcasm>





Anyways, there is a "national debt clock" in New York tallying up our debt...



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...hotos_ts_afp/3ab300a468f170c5bdb42619f82bb92b





"When the public debt was rising at the rate it was a decade ago, it was a great idea. But now it just becomes a basis for complacency," said Lou Crandall, who follows Treasury financing at the Wall Street research firm Wrightson & Associates.



Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore has outlined a plan that he says would eliminate the debt by 2012.



Senior economic advisers to Texas Governor and Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush agree with the principle of paying down the debt but have not committed to a specific date for eliminating it.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/#2



Man. I would laugh but at this stage it's just too painful...



http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/



Maybe we should "declare war" on our national debt?

Maybe THEN it'll get taken seriously?
 
Feb 2006
12,706
1,933
California
#5
Now the whole damn Nation's Seminal Oedipal Nightmare revisited.



Diebold makes voting machines that are used in 37 states, but they provide no verifiable record and lack even basic protection against fraud.

http://scdc.sccs.swarthmore.edu/diebold/



Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between Saddam and al Qaeda


http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm



15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm



--------------------------------------

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” ---James Madison 4th U.S. president (1809 -1817), and one of the founding fathers of this country. (1751- 1836)



—"Because he's hiding…" Bush, explaining why Osama bin Laden has yet to be captured. (Washington Post interview, Jan. 16, 2005)



My posts may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code.
 
Apr 2005
2,181
119
Poplar, MT
#6
A secret blueprint my ass. It is a informational paper created by a think tank for distribution. It is not foreign policy.



dmk
 

hevusa

Former Staff
Feb 2005
7,705
6
#7
sgtdmski said:
A secret blueprint my ass. It is a informational paper created by a think tank for distribution. It is not foreign policy.



dmk




Call it what you want, as long as you call it wrong and immoral.
 
May 2006
117
0
#8
ridinhighspeeds said:
Ouch...I really think this war is just costing us way too much money and is just a benefit to mainly the Iraqi people. They are now allowed to vote, they don't have to suffer under the rule of a dictator, more schools are being built, some Iraqi people are being trained as soldiers, the list goes on. Their are just many good things going on from us being over there...but I honestly think it's not worth every American's expense (taxes) to be used to benefit another nation. Why not the starving children in Africa? Why not other nations who could use the help?



I think it was right to take out Saddam and look for Bin Laden, but not right to benefit another nation to the point where they can have a democracy, elections, etc..



I don't know, it's just very difficult to think about.


understand how Babylon works and you will see it is necessary for their plans



the commies are within our midst and most cant see them if they slapped them in the face ten times a day
 
Sep 2006
125
0
#9
It is sooo easy to spend other people's money.... The politicos do pretty much what they want and they certainly don't budget or live within the taxpayers' means.... Let the next group of politicians (and taxpayers) deal with the fallout..... Now if it was their (the politicians') money......... Too bad that someday this will catch up with us, the American public..... I have no ideas on how to stop them except by voting them out of office as soon as possible......and what is to stop another group of losers, uh politicians, from doing the same thing? .....
 
Sep 2006
125
0
#10
Intangible: There has always been voter fraud, no matter what system is used for voting. Machines are just as easily manipulated as paper ballots. All governments do secret sh*t.....why should our so-called democratic government be any different? Bush would be dictator if he could get away with it......and he sure is trying......