US FICO Score= 0

Siji · Post by **Siji** » December 31, 2005, 1:58 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051229/pl_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

John Snow warned lawmakers on Thursday that a legally set limit on the government's ability to borrow will be hit in mid-February and urged Congress to raise it quickly.

Failure to do so potentially risks throwing the country into its first default in history, Snow warned in what has become virtually an annual rite as U.S. borrowing needs spiral.

"The administration now projects that the statutory debt limit, currently $8.184 trillion, will be reached in mid-February 2006," Snow said in a letter to 21 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate released by Treasury after financial markets had closed.

Snow said that Treasury, if the debt limit was not raised by then, would have to take "extraordinary actions" to keep paying its bills for everything from
Social Security to national defense spending.

Even if Treasury took "all available prudent and legal actions to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit, we anticipate that we can finance government operations no longer than mid-March."

The debt limit was last raised in November 2004 by $800 billion to its current level. The letter to Congress does not specify an amount the Treasury wants the ceiling set at this time.

But he said quick action was needed to preserve the U.S. ability to borrow in global capital markets at the lowest rates possible.

"A failure to increase the debt limit in a timely manner would threaten this unique and important position," Snow said.

The call for an increase in the debt ceiling typically provokes a round of criticism from opposition politicians over excessive government spending and the process is drawn out until nearly the last possible moment.

Treasury officials had said in November it was bracing for hefty borrowing needs in the January-March quarter, likely around a record $171 billion, and that it likely would hit the debt limit in that period.

Among other factors, the Treasury cited increased spending for rebuilding Gulf Coast areas hit hard by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » January 1, 2006, 12:01 pm

Ahh, to see Bush drive a whole nation to ruin, as he did with around every company he was involved with.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » January 1, 2006, 1:32 pm

The US would have a credit score higher then 0... heck 300 is the minimum, thinking about it the US would be about a 480 only Cap 1 would lend em cash, and at 21%

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 3, 2006, 2:14 am

I agree with Hesten, let's cancel all Hurricanes for the rest of Bush's term.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 3, 2006, 2:17 am

holy fuck, you are sean hannity?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 3, 2006, 2:19 am

Holy shit, you are a troll?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 3, 2006, 10:13 pm

Oh, I am the one trolling? Bush spends eleventy five trillion dollars on conquering Iraq, gets caught numerous times letting KBR over charge by 100's of millions of dollars, and when people call him out for over extending the USA's lending you blame a fucking hurricane? What turnip truck do you think we fell off of yesterday?

There should be contingency funds for disasters. Hell maybe there should be a few trillion dollar contingency fund for neoconservative presidents too.

HEY GUYS THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT VOTED IN ANOTHER NEOCON AND HE WANTS TO GIVE HIS VICE PRESIDENT'S COMPANY 500 BILLION DOLLARS FOR A LASER SHOOTING SATTELITE THAT TRANSFORMS INTO A ROBOT. Okay, dip into the Reagan Memorial Contingency Fund! Oh what the hell, give them a trillion and call up the House of Saud for another loan!

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » January 3, 2006, 10:24 pm

What Kyou said. You can't seriously believe that our domestic and foreign spending costs, not to mention tax cuts, are based off the hurricane season of '05. Aid for the tsunami and New Orleans is what is behind our recent splurge of debt over the past five years?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 4, 2006, 12:35 am

Kaldaur wrote:What Kyou said. You can't seriously believe that our domestic and foreign spending costs, not to mention tax cuts, are based off the hurricane season of '05. Aid for the tsunami and New Orleans is what is behind our recent splurge of debt over the past five years?

It's been going on far longer than 5 years.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » January 4, 2006, 5:52 am

I said splurge...Clinton, IIRC, tried to balance the budget, or did so for a year or two, but when the GOP took over in 94 they clashed over this issue of spending

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 4, 2006, 12:59 pm

No she doesn't believe that, she is saying that she can't believe that other people do! Remember that we had a surplus, NO DEBT, before Bushie took over...

Marb

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 4, 2006, 1:16 pm

Marbus wrote: Remember that we had a surplus, NO DEBT, before Bushie took over...

This is incorrect. For a few years (1998-2001) we had no deficit, meaning for that particular year receipts were greater than spending. But we most assuredly still had debt, The U.S. government has had debt since at least 1940.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 4, 2006, 1:24 pm

Chmee wrote:
Marbus wrote: Remember that we had a surplus, NO DEBT, before Bushie took over...
This is incorrect. For a few years (1998-2001) we had no deficit, meaning for that particular year receipts were greater than spending. But we most assuredly still had debt, The U.S. government has had debt since at least 1940.

Marb definately meant deficit. Only an idiot would believe that the US had no debt in the 90s. And by the way, even in 1900 the US had debt in the billions.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 4, 2006, 2:04 pm

Thanks Miir, yes that is what I meant... I should learn not to post and talk on a conference call at the same time

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » January 4, 2006, 2:53 pm

miir wrote:Marb definately meant deficit. Only an idiot would believe that the US had no debt in the 90s. And by the way, even in 1900 the US had debt in the billions.

Just wanted to make sure no one got the wrong impression from it. Also, the only reason I said at least 1940 was that was as far back as the table from the U.S. budget went back, but since it was 50 billion then (in adjusted dollars) a debt going back to at least 1900 seems pretty likely.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » January 4, 2006, 5:25 pm

Right, deficit is what I've been talking about. Clinton balanced the yearly budget, but there was no way a president, even over the course of eight years, could make a sizable dent in the 3 trillion plus debt at that time. Now it's worse, with no regard for fixing it.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » January 4, 2006, 9:14 pm

I like pie.