Mar 6, 2006

US In Danger Of March 20 Default

Share

(Washington, DC) By March 20 the United States is expected to hit the $8.2 trillion debt limit, and the nation could suffer the ignominy of defaulting on obligations.

Treasury Secretary John Snow called on lawmakers to enact legislation raising the debt ceiling to avoid default.

"I know that you share the president's and my commitment to maintaining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government," Snow said in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate.

Snow informed lawmakers that the Treasury Department tap the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in order to provide a "few billion" dollars in temporary borrowing ability.

Rep. Charles Rangel(D - NY) said that any further rise in the debt limit should be coordinated with legislation that would help bring future deficits down.

"Simply raising the limit on George W. Bush's credit card and crossing our fingers won't solve anything," Rangel said in a statement. "Any long-term debt limit increase must be accompanied by a serious effort to bring our budget back to the balance we achieved under the Clinton administration."

Senate Democrats argued that the national debt has risen by $3 trillion since President Bush took office, an increase of some 40 percent in a little over five years.

10 comments:

M A F said...

Oh come on now Mike, why not raise the debt limit yet again and pass another round of tax cuts to be had by "all."

McCaskey said...

Certainly the war on terror is responsible for some of this, but the $5 billion a month (at least) for the last 36 months for the needless Iraq misadventure doesn't help.

liberal_dem said...

Congress and Bush are like teenagers. They run up 'credit card' debt then ask the company to increase their limit.

'Pathetic' hardly does justice to this.

historymike said...

Yes, the war on terror, Iraq occupation, and a sluggish economy have some role in driving up the debt.

The ill-advised tax cuts, though, are most responsible for the debt rise.

Note: I am not against tax cuts, provided they are accompanied by corresponding spending cuts.

But the timing of the Bush tax cuts, at the beginning of a recession, only served to exacerbate the drop in federal revenues from 2001-2003 slump.

-Sepp said...

Iraq and the war on terror has certainly gobbled up the lion's share of spending. At the rate we're going, the dollar will be as worthless the post WW1 reichmark. I know mac was being sarcastic in the tax cut remark but, what does he hint at? Taxing the country into prosperity? Creating a command economy? Sorry, those ideas have been tried and failed miserably in every case. Do we cut Iraq funding, security funding and stop matching cities spending for security measures? Cut entitlement spending and social programs which also gobble up the greenbacks with zero return on the money and no economic stimulus.

liberal_dem said...

sepp-

How about cutting the military spending by 75% now that there are no other nations threatening us. And, cut the Iraq black hole as well.

Hooda Thunkit said...

President Bush proposed both tax cuts and spending reductions, but no one in power these days has any intention in cutting spending; they all seem to love the pork and the pork FAT too...

I have an idea, let's cut foreign aid. Let's let the rest of the world live within their own budgets. Who knows, maybe we'll get infected and catch it too.

-Sepp said...

A military cut may be needed LD but, your 75% number is plain ignorant. We did large cuts after WW1 and 2 only to find ourselves unprepared when the next conflict came about ala task force smith. Keep a standing regular army and go to a system like the Swiss use. Cuts in the welfare system and a serious revamp is also in order. Perhaps modeled after the system in Germany where it's considered a safety net instead of a career option and, gets paid back. And since we have no more enemies that are a threat, we can cut off a ton of foreign aid that was initially in place to keep some countries from becomming Soviet controlled. No more soviets...no more aid. The war on terror is at this time something we have to deal with. My biggest concern is that "the war on terror" turns into a pork barrel opportunity and becomes as effective as the "war on drugs". How many of those trillions fed that piglet?

Peahippo said...

(GuestZero here.)

Hooda, there will be NO cutting of "foreign aid", since it aligns foreign leaders with America, allows them to arm themselves against domestic and border socialists, and paves the way for a lot of capitalist thievery. In short, foriegn aid is an important mechanism for spreading the culture of the American Empire.

The elite will never stop foreign aid. You'd have to literally SHOOT THEM to put a stop to it.

historymike said...

True, Guest Zero.

I might also add that much foreign "aid" is really a form of kickbacks to US corporations, as most forms have stipulations that the recipient use US firms for the work being done.