Republican Debt Ceiling Fight Cost U.S. Taxpayers $1.3 Billion

[TheCouga]

How much did last year’s debt fight cost taxpayers? - 2chambers - The Washington Post

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said Monday that the $1.3 billion in costs came as the result of increased borrowing costs for the Treasury Department. The final cost is expected to climb higher as multi-year obligations and other outstanding costs are added later.

The debt fight prompted Standard & Poor’s to drop the nation’s AAA credit rating and blame “political brinkmanship” for making the U.S. government’s ability to manage its finances “less stable, less effective and less predictable.”

The fighting also spurred thousands of hours in extra work for the Bureau of Public Debt, the tiny agency responsible for diverting funds in order to avoid exceeding the debt limit

No word yet on whether they're going to shove people off of Medicare or food stamps, or "borrow more money from China" to pay for their political theatrics.

[hueytaxi]

I think their message was "cut spending"; a concept liberals don't understand. Compare this to the guy who wants a Harley. Wife says we're broke now, we can't afford it! So hubby takes out a loan he can't pay and wifey is to blame for saying no.

[TheCouga]

But we can pay for it, and the debt ceiling was going to be raised no matter what, yet the Republicans still chose to enact their extremely costly political theatrics and blackmail the country until they got what they wanted.

[hueytaxi]

No we couldn't pay for it or the debt ceiling would not have been raised to either print or borrow funding.

[TheCouga]

No we couldn't pay for it or the debt ceiling would not have been raised to either print or borrow funding.

We can pay for it, because we did pay for it. We got a loan. Investors are still lending the U.S. Government money at favorable rates. They obviously are not concerned about us paying off our debts. The debt crisis is manufactured.

[pyrotigers]

Damn 1.3 billion. That's what...about 8 hours of the federal deficit?

[pfife]

I think their message was "cut spending"; a concept liberals don't understand. Compare this to the guy who wants a Harley. Wife says we're broke now, we can't afford it! So hubby takes out a loan he can't pay and wifey is to blame for saying no.

Yawn. The party you support is pathetic on fiscal responsibility.

[hueytaxi]

Yawn. The party you support is pathetic on fiscal responsibility.

The GOP does not have my support. They need a total overhaul. But why does it matter. Neither party has put up a good candidate since Eisenhower.

[pfife]

The GOP does not have my support. They need a total overhaul. But why does it matter. Neither party has put up a good candidate since Eisenhower.

yet you only criticize liberals for fiscal responsibility?

If anything, "liberal" Bill Clinton was the most fiscally responsible we've seen in a long long time

[Ingefanclub]

Damn 1.3 billion. That's what...about 8 hours of the federal deficit?

+1
The US deficit was around $1.5 trillion every year the past 4 years.
Without this it would have been 1.4987 trillion for the year in question.

[mtutiger]

The GOP does not have my support. They need a total overhaul. But why does it matter. Neither party has put up a good candidate since Eisenhower.

What was the top tax rate when Eisenhower was President?

[MDMAzing]

The only reason im posting here is because i saw this on the left hand side bar while browsing the tigers forum and to be clear i have 0 party affiliation what so ever because i think both parties are a joke.

That being said....it's always "republicans this", "democrats that", "it's Bush's fault, No, its Obama's fault" etc etc etc. Until both parties and their supporters take responsibility and realize that WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, this country will remain in the dumps and the "recovery" will be an unattainable dream.

[Gehringer_2]

The only reason im posting here is because i saw this on the left hand side bar while browsing the tigers forum and to be clear i have 0 party affiliation what so ever because i think both parties are a joke.

That being said....it's always "republicans this", "democrats that", "it's Bush's fault, No, its Obama's fault" etc etc etc. Until both parties and their supporters take responsibility and realize that WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, this country will remain in the dumps and the "recovery" will be an unattainable dream.

It's nice sentiment MD, but it's not the reality at all. We are not all 'in it together'. We have a fat and happy class that is perfectly satisfied with the status quo and is doing everything they can to persaude the rest of us they really have our interests at heart lest we all wake up and start making this a more equitable place. In that effort, we will also most definitely not 'all be in it together' because the interests whose oxen are in serious need of goring are going to keep fighting every step of the way. So you can have political peace or you can have change/recovery, but you will not get both.

[mtutiger]

It's nice sentiment MD, but it's not the reality at all. We are not all 'in it together'. We have a fat and happy class that is perfectly satisfied with the status quo and is doing everything they can to persaude the rest of us they really have our interests at heart lest we all wake up and start making this a more equitable place. In that effort, we will also most definitely not 'all be in it together' because the interests whose oxen are in serious need of goring are going to keep fighting every step of the way. So you can have political peace or you can have change/recovery, but you will not get both.

+1. We actually used to be somewhat like this, such as when Eisenhower was President (though without the civil rights for various groups). But yeah, the "fat and happy" class does want us to remain in the status quo.

[hueytaxi]

What was the top tax rate when Eisenhower was President?

Google it.

[Gehringer_2]

Google it.

Don't have to. I remember reading the tax table on a 1040 form one year when I was in grade school and the last line for wage income at the end of the table was 90%, though it was probably JFK by then. I don't think I would have known what a % was when Ike was in office!

[hueytaxi]

Don't have to. I remember reading the tax table on a 1040 form one year when I was in grade school and the last line for wage income at the end of the table was 90%, though it was probably JFK by then. I don't think I would have known what a % was when Ike was in office!

Nor would I, Ike would have been elected if he was a Whig or a Tory.
I do recall listening to him speak at the base of his Columbine out at the Jacksonville airport.

I was being snarky......I try to only do that to Couga.

[MDMAzing]

It's nice sentiment MD, but it's not the reality at all. We are not all 'in it together'. We have a fat and happy class that is perfectly satisfied with the status quo and is doing everything they can to persaude the rest of us they really have our interests at heart lest we all wake up and start making this a more equitable place. In that effort, we will also most definitely not 'all be in it together' because the interests whose oxen are in serious need of goring are going to keep fighting every step of the way. So you can have political peace or you can have change/recovery, but you will not get both.

I know its just more wishful thinking than reality since the select few in charge will do whats best for their friends than the masses, but maybe its part of the problem even though it will never change.

[pyrotigers]

yet you only criticize liberals for fiscal responsibility?

If anything, "liberal" Bill Clinton was the most fiscally responsible we've seen in a long long time

George W. Bush was a TERRIBLE president and I'll gladly criticize him for his awful mass spending and tax cuts plan. But currently I don't see how you can possibly make an argument that the Democrats are not worse than the GOP on fiscal issues. You could argue that the spending is NECESSARY and while I'd disagree it's an argument at least, but otherwise it's just nonsensical.

[TheCouga]

George W. Bush was a TERRIBLE president and I'll gladly criticize him for his awful mass spending and tax cuts plan. But currently I don't see how you can possibly make an argument that the Democrats are not worse than the GOP on fiscal issues. You could argue that the spending is NECESSARY and while I'd disagree it's an argument at least, but otherwise it's just nonsensical.

The reason we are over budget is still mostly due to Bush's policies. Well over 50% of today's deficit is due to Iraq and Afghanistan spending on top of the Bush Tax cuts. Bush simply started wars and never figured out how to pay for them. And he never cut spending to match the decrease in revenues from his tax cuts.

Obamacare is paid for -- and in fact, it reduces the deficit. The only thing Obama did to add to the deficit was the stimulus, which was a one-time shot, not a continuing expense like the Bush tax cuts, Iraq, or Afghanistan. And the cost of the stimulus is nothing compared to Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Obama's at fault, he's at fault for 1) not immediately pulling out of the Middle East, or 2) raising taxes and reversing the Bush tax cuts during a recession. Both moves would have been catastrophic.

The real reason we're in such a bind is because the stuff Bush got us into is very hard to get out of, especially during a recession. Raising taxes or cutting spending during a recession usually only makes things worse. Yet Obama would have had to do both of those to balance the budget -- at the expense of the economy.

[mtutiger]

Nor would I, Ike would have been elected if he was a Whig or a Tory.
I do recall listening to him speak at the base of his Columbine out at the Jacksonville airport.

I was being snarky......I try to only do that to Couga.

I didn't need to google it either. But the fact remains is that Eisenhower, by today's standards, was a "tax and spend" liberal. He believed in domestic spending, as well as infrastructure spending, something that the current Republican Party appears not to believe in.

Furthermore, as proven by the top tax rate at the time, as G2 mentioned, there's a much larger divide between the "fat and happy" of then and now. At the time, they provided above and beyond what was needed for the good of the country. Now, they can't even accept an increase on top of the lowest top tax rate since the Gilded Age.

[TheCouga]

In this sense, Obama really is getting blamed for Bush's mess. Bush messed up the trifecta. 1) he increased spending, 2) he decreased revenues, and 3) he torpedoed the economy. If only one of the above was messed up, it would be an easy fix. Two of the above would be a challenge, but doable. But fixing all three at the same time is practically economically impossible, and the only thing that will fix it is time. A long time.

[hueytaxi]

I didn't need to google it either. But the fact remains is that Eisenhower, by today's standards, was a "tax and spend" liberal. He believed in domestic spending, as well as infrastructure spending, something that the current Republican Party appears not to believe in.

Furthermore, as proven by the top tax rate at the time, as G2 mentioned, there's a much larger divide between the "fat and happy" of then and now. At the time, they provided above and beyond what was needed for the good of the country. Now, they can't even accept an increase on top of the lowest top tax rate in the since the Gilded Age.

Recall that Ike was the Supreme Commander and after election was facing the cold war build up. Cuba had gone Communist and Russia was deeply involved in their military and poilitical affairs. Thus the Interstate was born to quickly move military units within our borders (never needed before since the Civil War).
It was an era of bipartisan achievement and not solely due to Ike. Yes he spent on infrastructure and spent on defense. This put post war people to work in vast numbers. I watched the miles of troop convoys roll through our little town shortly after his presidency, enroute to South Florida during the Cuban Missle Crisis..

[mtutiger]

Thus the Interstate was born to quickly move military units within our borders (never needed before since the Civil War).

That was the rationale used to get it passed Congress. But honestly, many transportation historians would tell you that the main aim of the interstate highway system was not for national defense, but for what it is used for today: transportation of goods and services.

It was an era of bipartisan achievement and not solely due to Ike. Yes he spent on infrastructure and spent on defense. This put post war people to work in vast numbers. I watched the miles of troop convoys roll through our little town shortly after his presidency, enroute to South Florida during the Cuban Missle Crisis..

Roger, we need people put to work in vast numbers now and our infrastructure is crumbling. The only reason Ike could do what he did back then was because the government recieved enough money in taxes so that they could actually build the system.

With a top tax bracket of 35%, the interstate highway could never get built today. Meanwhile, our spineless politicians are going to continue to do what they're doing... ignore infrastructure spending and just about every other type of spending in the name of scoring political points. Maybe when the Tappan Zee Bridge falls, they'll start paying attention.

[hueytaxi]

Also Ike did not have the spending on poverty and welfare like programs. It was a simpler time and fewwer taxes afforded much more. No argurement with you. I was in early school at the time and my grandfather was one of the few Republicans in the local area so he always manned the polls (besides constant teaching of conservative views.).

[Mr. DNA]

Don't look at Ike, look at LBJ.

Johnson fought Vietnam, the War On Poverty (social programs FAR more generous than those around today), launched Medicare, and built a ton of infrastructure while he was President.

Yet, somehow, Johnson didn't run these kinds of deficits. Nor did Nixon, Ford, or Carter. Our debt didn't explode until Ronald Reagan became President.

What changed with Ronald Reagan? The tax rates got way lower on rich people.

[Gehringer_2]

Don't look at Ike, look at LBJ.

Johnson fought Vietnam, the War On Poverty (social programs FAR more generous than those around today), launched Medicare, and built a ton of infrastructure while he was President.

Yet, somehow, Johnson didn't run these kinds of deficits. Nor did Nixon, Ford, or Carter. Our debt didn't explode until Ronald Reagan became President.

What changed with Ronald Reagan? The tax rates got way lower on rich people.

What happened under Reagan was a typical example of how in politics a little truth can end up being the stalking horse for a lot of falsehood. Reagan and his advisers were correct that marginal tax rates were so high it was counterproductive - and it was easy to sell rate cuts on the argument that they would result in *more* revenue - a free lunch proposition if ever there was one. Note that this argument was first made and then demonstrated by Kennedy - a Democrat - in the early 60's when some small cuts were made in the punishingly high rates then in force. And it's worth remembering that Reagan sold the cuts on the basis of giving the government MORE resources. The only fly in the ointment is that no-one had any idea where the 'optimum' revenue marginal rate was, and history has unambiguously shown rates are now at a point where revenues fell dramatically with the most recent Bush rate reductions.

But somehow the converse of "tax cuts raise revenue", namely "tax increases kill the economy and reduce revenue" which is only true in a narrow set of circumstances which do not apply today, has become part of the Republican mythos in defiance of all historical fact.

[Melody]

Funny how everybody seems to be skipping right over the Carter administration.

[rhino]

We can pay for it, because we did pay for it. We got a loan. Investors are still lending the U.S. Government money at favorable rates. They obviously are not concerned about us paying off our debts. The debt crisis is manufactured.

Getting a loan to pay for something is not the same as paying for something.

The US hasn't paid for anything in a long, long time. Nearest I can figure is 1913.

[ballmich]

Since we're going to point fingers at people and blame them for the world's problems, how about Geithner lying about 2012 tax proceeds when projecting debt funding needs for the year. Yeah that never catches up with you, except for today:

We have $600 billion of "underestimated" net borrowing needs for Q3 and Q4. Whoops, right Timmy?

Treasury Announces Marketable Borrowing Estimates

The most awesome of the awesome, you ask? Well it's that we now project to hit the Debt Ceiling the week of the presidential election! Now that should make for some fireworks. Or at least a good knock down drag out fight.

[Gehringer_2]

Funny how everybody seems to be skipping right over the Carter administration.

Nobody likes bad memories!

I can't remember that Carter did much in term of economic policy - he spent a lot of time worrying about where we set our thermostats, how fast we drove, building up DOE, and whether we had the malaise, but I really can't think of any signature economic policy he pushed. Maybe I've just forgotten it.

[Ingefanclub]

While democrats are correct that Bush kept emergency war spending off budget, the CBO counted the war costs in every monthly and yearly budget. The last Bush budget had a deficit of around $450 billion.

Every Obama deficit has topped $1.2 trillion despite the fact that the war in Iraq is over.

They are playing loose with the facts to try and make Obamas spending spree seem like Bush is at fault. I think Americans are getting tired of the excuses. God help us if we have another 4 years and $6 trillion in debt with Obama.

[pfife]

While democrats are correct that Bush kept emergency war spending off budget, the CBO counted the war costs in every monthly and yearly budget. The last Bush budget had a deficit of around $450 billion.

Every Obama deficit has topped $1.2 trillion despite the fact that the war in Iraq is over.

They are playing loose with the facts to try and make Obamas spending spree seem like Bush is at fault. I think Americans are getting tired of the excuses. God help us if we have another 4 years and $6 trillion in debt with Obama.

That bolded number is easily demonstrated as false. TARP was his, and it was approx 700b, and was all deficit spending. Add that to the $450b, and you got.... 11.5b?

Iraq ended, but Afghanistan surged.

[Ingefanclub]

That bolded number is easily demonstrated as false. TARP was his, and it was approx 700b, and was all deficit spending. Add that to the $450b, and you got.... 11.5b?

Iraq ended, but Afghanistan surged.

TARP was in the CBO numbers for 2009 which is why the budget ballooned from $450 billion to $1.4 trillion under Obama's first year (ended Sept 30, 2009). You could attribute that budget to Bush if you insist. But the years after 2009 TARP paid back almost all the money so Obama got the benefit of a few hundred billion dollars per year in TARP payments yet his deficits still stayed well over $1 trillion per year. (1 trillion = 1000 billion)

The Iraq war cost $9 billion per month according to the CBO which equates to $108 billion per year. Those figures are no where near Obamas $1.4 trillion dollar deficits. Stimulus added around $250 billion per year as far as I can figure I don't know how Obama got the other trillion dollars in deficit. I suppose the Afghanistan and Iraq wars could have added another $250 billion per year.

[TheCouga]

TARP was in the CBO numbers for 2009 which is why the budget ballooned from $450 billion to $1.4 trillion under Obama's first year (ended Sept 30, 2009). You could attribute that budget to Bush if you insist. But the years after 2009 TARP paid back almost all the money so Obama got the benefit of a few hundred billion dollars per year in TARP payments yet his deficits still stayed well over $1 trillion per year. (1 trillion = 1000 billion)

The Iraq war cost $9 billion per month according to the CBO which equates to $108 billion per year. Those figures are no where near Obamas $1.4 trillion dollar deficits. Stimulus added around $250 billion per year as far as I can figure I don't know how Obama got the other trillion dollars in deficit. I suppose the Afghanistan and Iraq wars could have added another $250 billion per year.

Much of the remaining deficit after this was due to decreased revenues, not increased spending. The Bush tax cuts are a huge factor -- even moreso than Iraq and Afghanistan. And because of the recession, there's less economic activity, thus less taxes collected.

Obama really hasn't increased spending other than the stimulus. It's just that revenues are down.

[ewsieg]

Iraq ended, but Afghanistan surged.

If you want to claim Bush on TARP (which was hugely bipartisan), then you better be giving credit on the Afghanistan surge to Obama.

[TheCouga]

I've posted this before, and I'll keep posting it until it sinks in:



The Bush Tax Cuts are THE main problem. Everything else is chump change.

[hueytaxi]

Much of the remaining deficit after this was due to decreased revenues, not increased spending. The Bush tax cuts are a huge factor -- even moreso than Iraq and Afghanistan. And because of the recession, there's less economic activity, thus less taxes collected.

Obama really hasn't increased spending other than the stimulus. It's just that revenues are down.

[sinister porpoise]

George W. Bush was a TERRIBLE president and I'll gladly criticize him for his awful mass spending and tax cuts plan. But currently I don't see how you can possibly make an argument that the Democrats are not worse than the GOP on fiscal issues. You could argue that the spending is NECESSARY and while I'd disagree it's an argument at least, but otherwise it's just nonsensical.

From my own perspective it is quite easy. The GOP categorically rejects tax increases and is often at odds with the majority of analysts as to whether a policy will increase or decrease the deficit (i.e. the CBO saying 'Obamacare' lowers the deficit). Democrats do not have the same taboos.

I read Romney's tax plan as reducing taxes, especially on the rich, without adequate specifics as to corresponding cuts on spending. "Lower rates and broaden the base" is a political slogan where the speaker is trying to communicate "we'll lower your taxes but raise them on someone else" to everyone in the room.

[mtutiger]

Just because you want it to be a double facepalm doesn't make it a double facepalm, Roger... fact of the matter is that the effect of Bush era policies didn't just end on 1-20-09. They continue and still add to the deficit while Obama is president. That is, if you're willing to concede that the tax cuts do add to the deficit (a point of contention for many conservatives, though it really shouldn't be).

A good portion of Obama's spending programs that the right continually beats over his head were one time expenditures, such as the stimulus. Whether you like it's effectiveness or not (I'd still argue that it would have been more effective if half of it weren't tax cuts), the fact is that its a one time expenditure. And in the case of Obamacare, at least Democrats attempt to try to pay for it (the Medicare shift)... if the Republicans would have implemented it, they would have done it Medicare Part D style and just put it on the company credit card. Just like they did with Afghanistan. And Iraq. And the tax cuts. And the... you get where I'm going with this.