True, but it's actually year 4, next year, when the problems become fully apparent. That will be the first year where cbo does cost analysis with a full 10 years of benefits.
Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.
Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.
Thanks for sharing. I have put up a lot of other posts that go a little further in detail. I don't think we'd ever agree on single payer, but it looks like we both see this boondoggle for what it is.
$165 actually. The problem with making the young and healthy subsidize the old, is that the old have the money and the capital, while the young have fledgling careers and mountains of student debt. This is not going to work. Btw, my $165 will be $420 to $700 next year. That is nowhere near the national average for 500/0% insurance.
I see. I am now the sacrifice for the common good. It's becoming apparent to me that we will all have to sacrifice. When everybody has to sacrifice, can it still be for the common good?
I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with the "both sides do it" cop out. That's what someone says when their side gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Both sides haven't used the IRS as a political tool to attack enemies. Both sides haven't installed digital strip search machines in airports. Both sides haven't monitored your emails and correspondence. It's time to wake up.
There is so much you are ignoring beyond just spying, We are seeing things now that have never happened before. This country is not moving on the proper trajectory.
Sorry, I think you missed my point. I wanted people to compare to just 5 years ago, before we had a completely incompetent CINC running the show. The current trajectory is not pointed in the right direction in both of those places.
No, silly. They are just letting it go until we have a Republican in the Whitehouse to blame for it. Then the marches, protests, and front page NYTimes stories will resume.
I am 35 and healthy. Sure, I get that plans for younger healthy people will get more expensive. I don't agree with it, it goes against the spirit of the law. But the result of this, is to push me off of individual insurance altogether, and make me a dependent who will be 100% subsidized. I can afford my insurance easily right now, buying it next year is now a physical impossibility. Is this what the law was designed to do? If you like your insurance, we will make it so expensive you wont be able to afford it and and you'll be required by law to enroll in Medicaid? Is that what we were promised? This law just destroyed my ability to buy insurance altogether.
When it was President Bush you would get slandered and hammered for being against the wars. You'd be a pussy liberal faggot. Pro-terrorism. Against the troops. Disrespecting the 9/11 victims. And so on.
Remember Cindy Sheehan? Did the media hammer her for being against the wars? Warrantless wiretapping? Whistleblower's daily revelations to the NYTimes? What world are you remembering? The reason people are ambivalent about the NSA is because our independent media, is just a wing of the Democrat party. It has done everything possible to minimize the effects of all the numerous scandals of this administration. If a Republican were president you idiots would be marching in the streets.
All of them do. The really interesting thing is when when you compare costs for a plan that starts in 2013 vs a similar plan that starts in 2014. The differences are shocking, and not in a good way. Ehealthinsurance.com makes this very easy to do.
You guys keep acting like subsidized insurance costs less than unsubsidized. Someone has to pay for the subsidies, and the insurance companies still get the full price. What exactly did this law do to control costs?
Slashdot Mirror
...that it cost 24 billion to put up a bunch of paper signs, orange cones, and flimsy barricades.
How many taxpayers paid that 95% tax rate around WW2?
True, but it's actually year 4, next year, when the problems become fully apparent. That will be the first year where cbo does cost analysis with a full 10 years of benefits.
After watching the Senate for the last two weeks, it has become apparent that "all or none" is the way we do things now.
Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.
Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.
What is default? I think you forgot to find out what that means.
The treasury would only need to spend about 10% of tax revenues to prevent default. No permission from congress is necessary.
The Patriot act passed both houses, it was found to be constitutional, it's the law. Get over it.
Thanks for sharing. I have put up a lot of other posts that go a little further in detail. I don't think we'd ever agree on single payer, but it looks like we both see this boondoggle for what it is.
...have put an Oreo at one side of the maze and a line of cocaine at the other if they really wanted to see which was more addictive?
No. I'm not kidding. Nixon tried to, but the IRS refused. Sadly in the current scandal, the IRS did not refuse.
$165 actually. The problem with making the young and healthy subsidize the old, is that the old have the money and the capital, while the young have fledgling careers and mountains of student debt. This is not going to work. Btw, my $165 will be $420 to $700 next year. That is nowhere near the national average for 500/0% insurance.
I see. I am now the sacrifice for the common good. It's becoming apparent to me that we will all have to sacrifice. When everybody has to sacrifice, can it still be for the common good?
I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with the "both sides do it" cop out. That's what someone says when their side gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Both sides haven't used the IRS as a political tool to attack enemies. Both sides haven't installed digital strip search machines in airports. Both sides haven't monitored your emails and correspondence. It's time to wake up.
Who's pushing the shutdown story so hard? You can only be distracted if you allow yourself to be.
There is so much you are ignoring beyond just spying, We are seeing things now that have never happened before. This country is not moving on the proper trajectory.
Obviously, by your use of terminology, you have not been able to get enough "GOP shutdown coverage". Turn off Rachel Maddow, and do something useful.
Sorry, I think you missed my point. I wanted people to compare to just 5 years ago, before we had a completely incompetent CINC running the show. The current trajectory is not pointed in the right direction in both of those places.
No, silly. They are just letting it go until we have a Republican in the Whitehouse to blame for it. Then the marches, protests, and front page NYTimes stories will resume.
I am 35 and healthy. Sure, I get that plans for younger healthy people will get more expensive. I don't agree with it, it goes against the spirit of the law. But the result of this, is to push me off of individual insurance altogether, and make me a dependent who will be 100% subsidized. I can afford my insurance easily right now, buying it next year is now a physical impossibility. Is this what the law was designed to do? If you like your insurance, we will make it so expensive you wont be able to afford it and and you'll be required by law to enroll in Medicaid? Is that what we were promised? This law just destroyed my ability to buy insurance altogether.
Was it overblown when Bush was President?
How is Iraq doing these days? Afghanistan?
When it was President Bush you would get slandered and hammered for being against the wars. You'd be a pussy liberal faggot. Pro-terrorism. Against the troops. Disrespecting the 9/11 victims. And so on.
Remember Cindy Sheehan? Did the media hammer her for being against the wars? Warrantless wiretapping? Whistleblower's daily revelations to the NYTimes? What world are you remembering? The reason people are ambivalent about the NSA is because our independent media, is just a wing of the Democrat party. It has done everything possible to minimize the effects of all the numerous scandals of this administration. If a Republican were president you idiots would be marching in the streets.
All of them do. The really interesting thing is when when you compare costs for a plan that starts in 2013 vs a similar plan that starts in 2014. The differences are shocking, and not in a good way. Ehealthinsurance.com makes this very easy to do.
You guys keep acting like subsidized insurance costs less than unsubsidized. Someone has to pay for the subsidies, and the insurance companies still get the full price. What exactly did this law do to control costs?