PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: Congress Exceeds Its Credit Limit


shanek
17th April 2003, 08:57 AM
More very rational, insightful words from the one exception to the Gang of 535:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul89.html

The term “national debt” really is a misnomer. It’s not the nation’s debt, but rather the federal government’s debt. The American people didn’t spend the money, but they will have to pay it back. And if Congress has its way, our nation’s Treasury will have twice as much debt ten years from now as it does today.

Most Americans don’t spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than six trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes- currently about $22,000. Of course the federal government never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount, for obvious reasons. Instead, it uses your income taxes to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it’s rising steadily.

[...]

Yet Congress is at it again, raising the debt limit in a new budget that is as wasteful as any I’ve seen during my tenure in Washington- and that’s a strong statement. In fact, the 2004 budget passed by the House raises the debt limit by nearly one trillion dollars, the single largest increase by far. The budget also contains a procedural rule that allows the debt limit to increase annually over the next ten years, almost doubling from the current $6.4 trillion to an incredible $12 trillion.

Crossbow
17th April 2003, 09:04 AM
Well, what did you expect?

The money for the recent war had to come from somewhere.

Edited to correct a mischaracterization.

aerocontrols
17th April 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Crossbow
Well, what did you expect?

You were all for the recent war, did you expect the money to pay for to fall from the sky?


He was? I must have missed it.

Vorticity
17th April 2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Crossbow
Well, what did you expect?

You were all for the recent war, did you expect the money to pay for to fall from the sky?
Actually, I believe shanek was definitely against the current war.

Crossbow
17th April 2003, 11:16 AM
To: Vorticity, aerocontrols, shanek, and everyone else.

My original post was in error when I said that shanek was all for the recent war.

I did some checking and found out that I was wrong.

Sorry about that shanek! I apologize for getting your statements wrong. I was thinking you stated something else, but that was not the case at all.

Thanks to all for the correction!

Samus
17th April 2003, 11:45 AM
The lack of fiscal responsibility in our Congress is appalling. It transcends party lines, too. You can't blame the current state of the budget on Democrats or Republicans, it's both. They both want to spend way more than they have, they just want to spend it in different ways.

Of course, being fiscally conservative is unpopular, because that means less handouts and less pork barrel for senior Congressman who want to bring all kinds of useless projects to their districts.

There isn't a fix for the problem, at least not one I would expect Congress to pass. Reigning in the budget would involve some very politically risky moves, such as cutting funding for social projects and defense, requiring a certain percentage of spending to go solely to debt reduction, and disallowing budget deficits.

It's much less risky just to raise the debt ceiling, pushing off the problem on future generations.

Think of it this way: An 18-year-old gets his first credit card, $1000 limit. He charges up $980, and the credit card company raises his limit to $1500. Then he gets close to that, so the credit card company raises his limit yet again, and increases his interest rate. Pretty soon, his debt is un-payable, he's only paying on some of the interest, and the principal continues to grow because he continues to charge. We would call that irresponsible.

So what's the difference between him and the federal government? The government isn't accountable to its creditors, because we carry a large part of the world economy.

Smalso
17th April 2003, 12:52 PM
I remember that Ronald Reagan campaigned for president partially on the balanced budget issue. One of his campaign promises was a balanced budget by 1983. The first budget he submitted to congress had a built-in deficit of almost twice the deficit of any year of the Carter administration; and it continued to climb until, by the end of his two terms in office, he had added more to the national debt more than all the previous administrations combined, going all the way back to Washington. To my knowledge, the current president made no such promise. Nobody seemed to mind then, and nobody seems to mind now. Ask anybody on the street how much one trillion is. Most of them probably can't even tell you how many zeros it has.

shanek
17th April 2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Crossbow
Sorry about that shanek! I apologize for getting your statements wrong. I was thinking you stated something else, but that was not the case at all.

Not at all. You are a true gentleman.

Crossbow
18th April 2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by shanek


Not at all. You are a true gentleman.

Thank you!

I appreciate that you accept my apology.