Reagan on the Debt Ceiling

The debt ceiling debate is the same fraud perpetrated on the American people as Social Security is:

How is the ceiling determined? They don't admit it, but lawmakers tacitly agree to raise the debt ceiling every time they vote for a spending hike or tax cut.

"Congress has already passed and the president has already signed legislation that increases spending or decreases revenues. Those decisions have already been made," said Susan Irving, director for federal budget issues at the Government Accountability Office.

So in reality arguing over the debt ceiling is essentially arguing over whether to pay the bills the country has already incurred.

Debt ceiling: Time to get real
But politicians who make a stink about the debt ceiling will always try to make the case that the guy who votes to raise it is a fiscal spendthrift.

And politics, of course, permeates the whole debate. Lawmakers who want to make hay of the issue for political gain may push for a small increase so the debate comes up again soon. Others may want a bigger increase so they don't have to revisit the issue for awhile.

How many times has the ceiling been raised? Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001.

Expect more of the same over the next decade. Barring major changes to spending and tax policies, "Congress would repeatedly face demands to raise the debt limit," CRS wrote.


http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/16/news/economy/debt_ceiling_deadline/index.htm?hpt=T1
 
My understanding is that the spread between the federal funds rate and the 10-year is reflective not of the risk of lending to the United States of America, but rather is an early indicator of economic expansion or contraction. A larger spread is indicative of expected growth whereas a lower (or inverted) spread signals a likely recession. So I don't really follow your point.

Can you link me to something that explains it more comprehensively? And I ask this in all seriousness.

I will try to find you a link.

That said, you are partially correct in that the yield curve can also indicate expected growth/contraction based on the steepness of the yield curve (which is denoted by the spread between various maturities.)

In part, this is why I mentioned you MUST compare rates relative not only to the rest of the yield curve, but ALSO to rates throughout the world. You must also factor in that the yield curve can also steepen based on credit worthiness.... this is where QE1 and QE2 have distorted the yield curve since they were implemented. They create demand that otherwise would not have been there.
 
Compared to wonderfull agenda of the neo-cons, let's see, one world government, service employment rather than manufacturing, return to the gilded age/robber barron times?

Once again we see your desperate attempts to defend the indefensible by outright fabrications, lies and distortions. Why do you hate the truth so much; because it exposes your failed ideological beliefs for what they are?
 
Don't act stupid asshole, it was your boys Bush and Cheney that pushed the deficit into the stratosphere.

I am quite certain the irony of your offensively stupid comments escape you. You might want to take a look at some facts before you rabidly spew your abject stupidity on the forum.

Since Democrats have controlled the purse strings in 2007, the deficit has ballooned from a $160 billion deficit to over $1.6 trillion. $800 billion of that deficit was the porkulus legislation that has done NOTHING to improve the economy and was passed on a party line vote over the objections of Republicans and signed into law by Obama.

Try the truth once in a while Wilson; it aint gonna bite chew.
 
Once again we see your desperate attempts to defend the indefensible by outright fabrications, lies and distortions. Why do you hate the truth so much; because it exposes your failed ideological beliefs for what they are?

If you're gonna call me a liar Truth Defective, present some proof or shut the fuck up.
 
I am quite certain the irony of your offensively stupid comments escape you. You might want to take a look at some facts before you rabidly spew your abject stupidity on the forum.

Since Democrats have controlled the purse strings in 2007, the deficit has ballooned from a $160 billion deficit to over $1.6 trillion. $800 billion of that deficit was the porkulus legislation that has done NOTHING to improve the economy and was passed on a party line vote over the objections of Republicans and signed into law by Obama.

Try the truth once in a while Wilson; it aint gonna bite chew.

Right. As if you know anything about the truth.
 
If you're gonna call me a liar Truth Defective, present some proof or shut the fuck up.

Originally Posted by Rep. Joe Wilson R
Don't act stupid asshole, it was your boys Bush and Cheney that pushed the deficit into the stratosphere.


Now stop acting like a petulant little child and filling this forum with your incredible stupidity.
 
i asked dungheap to provide any news articles that stated the US credit worthiness was in danger during the 80's, he of course has not....today we have numerous such news articles from, not only S&P, but from moody. i'm sure nigel will now claim moody is not reliable either, because anything that doesn't fit his world view doesn't count, that way, he can continue to live his fantasy world where he never wrong.

further, he has not provided one source to back up his opinion

still nothing huh dung....
 

The result is that a president who was divisive and had average approval numbers during his actual presidency is now widely admired by a churning population that increasingly remembers the myth better than the man

ah yes.....average approval.....1984 election map.....

reagan-mondale-1984-electoral-college-map.jpg


and let's be honest.....if Mondale hadn't been from Minnesota does anyone think it would have still been blue?......
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Rep. Joe Wilson R
Don't act stupid asshole, it was your boys Bush and Cheney that pushed the deficit into the stratosphere.


Now stop acting like a petulant little child and filling this forum with your incredible stupidity.

That your idea of proof?
 
So do you admit you were wrong or not?

What that chart indicates is the shift started 16 years PRIOR to Reagan taking office and continued through his Presidency and on into 2005 (16 years AFTER his Presidency).

It also shows that was the general trend of most industrialized nations.

It also does not explain WHY the percentage changed.... ie... how much of the change was due to a decrease in US manufacturing vs. how much was due to an increase in service jobs? You do realize that if US manufacturing remains the same in a given year and the number of service jobs increases that the percentage of jobs in manufacturing will decrease?
 
What that chart indicates is the shift started 16 years PRIOR to Reagan taking office and continued through his Presidency and on into 2005 (16 years AFTER his Presidency).

It also shows that was the general trend of most industrialized nations.

It also does not explain WHY the percentage changed.... ie... how much of the change was due to a decrease in US manufacturing vs. how much was due to an increase in service jobs? You do realize that if US manufacturing remains the same in a given year and the number of service jobs increases that the percentage of jobs in manufacturing will decrease?

You do realize that if US manufacturing decreases and service jobs remain the same, that manufacturing has decreased don't you?
 
Back
Top