Debt ceiling votes: from routine to radioactive
July 7th, 2011
10:13 AM ET
3 years ago

Debt ceiling votes: from routine to radioactive

Washington (CNN) - You've heard the warnings by now.

If the federal government doesn't raise its debt ceiling by August 2, we're playing a nasty game of economic roulette. Interest rates may skyrocket. The dollar might crash. Your 401(k) could tank as markets tremble, the full faith and credit of the U.S. government teeters, and investors flee for safer havens.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Congress • Debt • Deficit
soundoff (19 Responses)
  1. ConservaFASCISTS

    The fascists republican regime better take the deal deal thats currently on the table. It's bad enough that all these cuts are occurring. Take it or leave it.

    July 7, 2011 10:21 am at 10:21 am |
  2. Democrat Class Warfare - Destroying the economy, destroying the country

    Politicians voting to continue the Obama and Democrat spending madness will be thrown out of office. If some semblance of fiscal sanity is not returned to Washington, our country's future is endangered. The American people now recognize the extreme danger the Democrats represent. 2010 was just the beginning. 2012 will see the conclusion of the return to fiscal sanity in this country when Obama and many Democrats are thrown out for endangering the very survival of this country with their endless spending, taxing and borrowing to support a welfare state.

    July 7, 2011 10:30 am at 10:30 am |
  3. Clyde

    Dear Democrat Class Warfare – Destroying the economy, destroying the country:

    Wait until your darling GOP brings down the entire finacial system if the debrt ceiling is not raised. I doubt if you are in the top 1% of Americans who can hire their own private army of thugs to protect their wealth, so better start storing up some spaghetti-o's and water for the economic apolcolypse.

    July 7, 2011 10:42 am at 10:42 am |
  4. MICK

    Getting our spending under control would be easy if we faced the facts.

    SENIOR CITIZENS ARE DRAINING THE TREASURY.

    Social Security is a ponzi scheme. SSI pays the failures in this country an income they don't deserve. Medicare and . Medicaid are socialist programs that will never work. Without trillions of dollars of our tax money to pay the bills

    REPEAL THESE PROGRAMS AND YOU DON'T NEED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING.

    Mick
    Tea Party Member
    Wolf Creek Montana

    July 7, 2011 10:47 am at 10:47 am |
  5. Four and The Door

    ConservaFASCISTS
    The fascists republican regime better take the deal deal thats currently on the table. It's bad enough that all these cuts are occurring. Take it or leave it.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________
    The spending cuts are bad?!?! What is your answer, to drive American national debt up to $25 trillion? Or do you think that the right answer is to raise taxes so government can get even larger and more expensive and we will just relegate economic leadership to China and India? Would you enjoy working a week to fill your gas tank and watching American unemployment get up to 20%? That is where tax increases can take us.

    July 7, 2011 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  6. Bill from GA

    Maybe I overlooked the part of the article where you mention that taxes for ALL Americans is at an all-time low for the post-WW2 era. I guess you don't think that has anything to do with our humongous debt??

    July 7, 2011 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  7. pmk1953

    What's the matter mick? Aren't all of us old people and disabled people dying off fast enough for you? Why don't you come and try to hurry me up. I can assure you, I'll be the one that walks away.

    July 7, 2011 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  8. cindy

    Blaming the elderly-most who have worked all their lives and some of their paychecks went into this"ponzi scheme" is ludicrous. The social security was not a problem except that it was not up for grabs like the Greedy op want. How about trying something new sir and come up with an idea of how to work so all PEOPLE benefit regardless of age?

    July 7, 2011 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  9. Democrat Class Warfare & Race Baiting - Destroying the economy, destroying the country

    Wait until your darling GOP brings down the entire finacial system if the debrt ceiling is not raised. I doubt if you are in the top 1% of Americans who can hire their own private army of thugs to protect their wealth, so better start storing up some spaghetti-o's and water for the economic apolcolypse.
    ==================================================================================================
    My dearest Clyde, I can protect my property quite well as I am always prepared for the worse. I have seen this Democrat driven catastrophe coming for quite some time. You seem to think the failure to raise the debt ceiling will be worse should we continue to spend our way to $100 TRILLION in debt and ultimate bankruptcy? Quite to the contrary, the former actually recognizes the problem and attempts to address it, thus making investors more secure. The latter says there is no problem when investors KNOW there is. Are are you not concerned with the latter because it will be somebody else problem?

    July 7, 2011 11:09 am at 11:09 am |
  10. Bill from GA

    4door – you don't seem able to understand that the debt limit is about money spent, or committed to be spent.

    Future spending is done through budgets. But I can't blame you for not trusting politicians, dem or repug, to rein in the budget, Your don't mind debt when repugs have full control, like they did when most of the expenses were added to the current debt (conservatives didn't have a problem with that.). Blame Obama for the debt if you want, but the 2 wars and Medicare drug plan were already in place when he took office.

    A lot of Americans have invested in this country for forty, fifty, or more years, and hate to see it brought down because the current idiot voters think it is not worth paying for. You want lobster for the price of fish sticks. Or else you don't think America is all that great.

    July 7, 2011 11:14 am at 11:14 am |
  11. Rudy NYC

    Four wrote:
    What is your answer, to drive American national debt up to $25 trillion?
    --------------
    Nope. That must have been Dubya's plan when he introduced his *temporary* tax cuts to stimulate an economy that didn't need it.

    The recession Dubya had in 2001 was caused by Greenspan jacking up interest rates because he thought the economy was growing too quickly and wanted to slow it down. (google "greenspan irrational exuberance"). The country is on the path set by Bush and Republicans who felt "deficits don't matter," even when warned that our current scenario was the most likely outcome of the policy.

    By the way, about those *temporary* Bush Tax Cuts, removing them is not a tax increase.

    For example, let's say you own a store and sell bread for $3.00 each. You have a bread sale with a price of $2.50 each. When the sale ends and the price goes back to *normal*, you are not increasing the price. It's called the end of the sale.

    July 7, 2011 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  12. ConservaFASCISTS

    @ Four and The Door

    I'd prefer "SHARED" sacrifice. In a republicans eyes the stimulus failed. I don't think it failed. It could have been alot better without all of the unnecessary tax breaks. Giving tax breaks will not lead us to prosperity. How mean times must we watch this movie play out with the same miserable ending? Enough!!!

    July 7, 2011 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  13. Anthony

    Four and the Door,

    According to PolitiFact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimated that the Bush tax cuts cost the government 1.7 trillion in lost revenue between 2001 and 2008. Because CBPP is left-leaning, PolitiFact asked the conservative Heritage Institute for its own estimate of the lost revenue. The Heritage Institute said that the tax cuts provided a stimulative effect, so the loss should be 25% less than the CBPP number. Even the Heritage Institute conceded that the tax cuts cost over 1 trillion in lost revenue by 2008 (1.7 trillion reduced by 25% is 1.275 trillion). Bush did not reduce government spending, so the lost revenue added to the deficit and the national debt.

    CBPP estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts for 10 more years (2009-2018) would cost 4.4 trillion. So the Bush tax cuts would cost a total of 6.1 trillion by 2018, according to CBPP. Even assuming a 25% stimulative effect, the Bush tax cuts would still cost over 4.5 trillion by 2018. The lost revenue would add to the deficit and the national debt, if the government does not reduce spending.

    You are proud that Republicans would get 4 trillion in spending cuts from Democrats. That number is smaller than 4.5 trillion, assuming the tax cuts have a 25% stimulative effect. Republicans have created the deficit/national debt problem they say they want to solve. They are the arsonists who have started the fire in the first place.

    July 7, 2011 11:22 am at 11:22 am |
  14. Frank

    Had the President reached out in good faith, we would not be at this point. His rhetoric only inflames the other side. It will not bring about compromise. This is shameful leadership on the part of the President during such a critical time!

    July 7, 2011 11:26 am at 11:26 am |
  15. Randy

    I've said this before and it is worth repeating.

    Remember people usually stick with things that work for them. 98% of people won't complain if the taxes get raised on the top 2%. But what if taxes are raised on the top 3..4..5..6%... of people. Will you start complaining only when the tax increases get to you? If you feel like you don't pay enough in taxes. Send the fed an extra check, I'm sure they will take it.

    July 7, 2011 11:27 am at 11:27 am |
  16. Rudy NYC

    Republicans and conservatives alike seem to have forgotten the fact that GWB had promised that his tax cuts would be only temporary. Then he extended them, again promising it was only temporary. He made these promises from the Oval Office, even admitting that they could not be sustained. They were in place to "stimulate the economy." The economy didn't need stimulating. Recession had ended before the first round even kicked in.

    What is most notable about the the Bush Tax Cuts, is that they occurred at a time when we were going to war. As John McCain stood on the Senate floor and told the American people, "...this is the first time in our history that a President has started a war and did not raise taxes to pay for it. Not only did you not raise them, you cut them, and extended your cuts."

    July 7, 2011 11:30 am at 11:30 am |
  17. Rudy NYC

    Frank

    Had the President reached out in good faith, we would not be at this point. His rhetoric only inflames the other side. It will not bring about compromise. This is shameful leadership on the part of the President during such a critical time!
    --------------
    The President is not the one at the table who said, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable," just prior to walking out of the room.

    July 7, 2011 11:35 am at 11:35 am |
  18. GI Joe

    I'll gladly pay 3% more in taxes if it will eliminate all the lying republicans from our national scene.

    July 7, 2011 11:38 am at 11:38 am |
  19. Sylvia Saint

    @ MICK has a point – however poorly stated.

    Many elderly [including those that were collecting SS 30 years ago] has TAKEN MORE OUT than they evr put in.

    The difference has to be made up and that adds to the deficit.

    The reason for the imbalance is that the people responsible for calculating actuary rates (how long people would live; at what rate they should contribute FICA) were not very good at their jobs. The managers of these people were not good either and the executives [the Presidents] were able to pilfer money out of these accounts and not be held accountable for their managerial malpractice.

    Raise the age of elligibility.

    Means test the recipients

    It`s a safety net. Not evrybody gets it. Not everyone needs it, It has no requirement to guarantee a certain standard of living. It is a supplement.

    If todays 60-year olds would have held Reagan accountable 30 yeats ago, maybe their Social Security and Medicare wouldn`t be under assault today.

    Or we can raise taxes on the affluent and close the gaps. Make your choice.

    July 7, 2011 11:46 am at 11:46 am |