The Debt Ceiling
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
Who’s Really Winning (and Losing) the Duel Over the Debt Ceiling
Progressives are offended. Hardliners are appalled. Who's right to be mad?
Mcarthy will be challenged over this boondoggle and Comer will be the new speaker. He's the only one accomplishing anything. If he gets Wray in that cell in the basement of the Capitol, it'll be a land slide.
The House passes it extremely easily. We did have adults in the room when we needed them.
No one is going to get Wray. Eric Holder thumbed his nose at Congress with no repurcussions, and Wray will, too.
From Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-debt-ceiling-bill-faces-narrow-path-passage-house-2023-05-31/
The vote totals suggest to me that more Republican members are disappointed than Democratic members.
This should be expected to pass the Senate. Those wishing to vote their conscience have cover to do so from the house vote. One thing not mentioned is the forthcoming debate over future regular order appropriations bills. I don’t see the Senate turning it down.
The Republican-controlled House voted 314-117 to send the legislation to the Senate, which must enact the measure and get it to President Joe Biden's desk before a Monday deadline, when the federal government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills.
The measure, a compromise between Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, drew opposition from 71 hardline Republicans. That would normally be enough to block partisan legislation, but 165 Democrats - more than the 149 Republicans who voted for it - backed the measure and pushed it through.
The vote totals suggest to me that more Republican members are disappointed than Democratic members.
This should be expected to pass the Senate. Those wishing to vote their conscience have cover to do so from the house vote. One thing not mentioned is the forthcoming debate over future regular order appropriations bills. I don’t see the Senate turning it down.
The Republican-controlled House voted 314-117 to send the legislation to the Senate, which must enact the measure and get it to President Joe Biden's desk before a Monday deadline, when the federal government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills.
The measure, a compromise between Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, drew opposition from 71 hardline Republicans. That would normally be enough to block partisan legislation, but 165 Democrats - more than the 149 Republicans who voted for it - backed the measure and pushed it through.
They all sold us down a river like they always do. Some one like this woman right here would likely be a massive improvement from the nimrods both parties currently have running Congress. She should run!
If both extremes are upset, I’d say we likely have a reasonable compromise. Gotta give McCarthy credit here. Whipping that caucus ain’t that easy.
Yep, avoiding a recession, maybe a depression, is being "sold down the river".
"Give us everything we want or we blow it all up" sure sounds like what a terrorist would say.
So now anyone who disagrees with the establishment is a terrorist? Get some help.
Nope, anyone willing to CRASH THE FREAKING ECONOMY is a terrorist.
So then why didn't the Senate pass the bill that the House already passed?
I know why, the DNC said, hold my Allahu Akbar.
Right, the Democrats should have voted to give the GOP EVERY.SINGLE.THING.THEY.WANT. That's how it works in your world.
The two sides disagree greatly over their vision. The GOP controls one of the three branches that decides the law of the land. They have a voice, just a voice. They don't own it entirely. So they negotiate, they compromise. Believe me, people like Elizabeth Warren is just as pissed as you. I've already seen progressive friends state how they can't possibly call themselves Democrats any more over this.
The adults on the two sides sat down and worked out a deal. No one ever is happy with a compromise solution, but heck, that's what the Constitution was. You and Warren and AOC (who voted against this compromise), and Rand Paul have the luxury of throwing your temper tantrums. The rest of us want the crisis averted. Solve the crisis right in front of you, then move on. If the plane can't make it from LA to NY, worry about that but clear the damn mountain 1 mile ahead first. If you don't clear that mountain, the rest won't matter.
Just like you said, terrorist. We all get it.
See, at no point am I saying crash the damn thing unless we get our way, you are. I am saying work with the other side to find an acceptable middle ground. You are the "no compromise, my way or the highway" terrorist. Right, that's how the jihadists are, either you support them 100% or you are their bitter enemy.
I have no problems with trying to move toward a balanced budget. We need to cut domestic, we need to cut the military, we need to raise revenue. The US economy grows 2%+ per year on average. Making small cuts and small enhancements will allow the economy to grow into the budget over 5 years or so. I have heard the cliff is here since before we were $1 trillion in debt. Crossing that mark was a sure sign of doom. Then of course $10 trillion. We haven't come close to doom. We need to get it in order, but there are no signs that cliff is right upon us. And given the track record of people predicting the cliff since before $1 trillion, I'm not sure I trust them to be right this time.
We can balance the budget. But is that really your end goal?
Debating two dyed in the wool Trump supporters about the budget and debt?
Hilarity.
It’s a political win for McCarthy, even though it doesn’t do much to change the country’s fiscal course.
Biden’s initial position was he was unwilling to negotiate over the debt ceiling, he did. People thought McCarthy couldn't be able to wrangle this caucus to do anything, he proved he can.
Conservatives that are hand wringing over the cuts not being deep enough aren’t being realistic. There’s only so much you can do with a Dem Senate and President.
I like Chip Roy but he’s maybe too true of a believer. I seriously believe he’d be willing to default.
Most of the others objecting from both sides aren’t serious people.
Last edited:
Every time this debt ceiling problem comes up the hypocrisy of both parties goes bananas. The debt ceiling has been raised 79 ties since 1960, 29 times by Dems and 49 times by Repubs. but both parties act like they alone are innocent of any wrongdoing and the extremist on both sides can't wait to find the nearest TV camera and spew their nonsense on what a disaster the negotiations were.
Almost 50% of our 31 trillion $ deficit occurred when the Bush and Trump were in office but to hear the extremist tell it the Dems spending was the single culprit. The debt ceiling was increased 18 times when Reagan (whom I voted for twice) was in office for example and I beleive he had the largest % increase of any president. But on the other hand, Obama was right up there at the top of increasing the national debt in actual dollars.
Marvin has it right on getting this settled rather than face the disaster that would follow a default. But neither side should have been forced to agree to some kind of terms because both parties are responsible for the debt our country has incurred and must be paid. There was another time for resolving spending issues without putting our country at risk.
Almost 50% of our 31 trillion $ deficit occurred when the Bush and Trump were in office but to hear the extremist tell it the Dems spending was the single culprit. The debt ceiling was increased 18 times when Reagan (whom I voted for twice) was in office for example and I beleive he had the largest % increase of any president. But on the other hand, Obama was right up there at the top of increasing the national debt in actual dollars.
Marvin has it right on getting this settled rather than face the disaster that would follow a default. But neither side should have been forced to agree to some kind of terms because both parties are responsible for the debt our country has incurred and must be paid. There was another time for resolving spending issues without putting our country at risk.
This nonsense. The House's proposal was reasonable. Running trillion dollar deficits is f#cking ridiculous.
It is. We’re headed for an iceberg and bickering over discretionary spending is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Alright you all have me convinced. Since we've allowed it to be raised to where it is, and any discussion or expectation is not allowed to draw a line... Lets just do away with it and allow the debit to never stop raising. No more ceiling, no more budgets, no more limits, just print until there is no more paper available. Hand it all out. Make it so we all can stop by the store and pick up another 100k for our needs for the next week. Make it happen and I'll head down to the money store tomorrow.
True, discretionary spending is only a small part of the problem. The big disaster heading our way is Social Security. We can solve that part by adding a year or two to the age and also remove or add to the maximum taxable amount. And we have to do both to offend both Democrats and Republicans, neither side is going to accept 100% of the hit. If Social Security is handled, everything else falls into place pretty easily.
Continuing to spend trillions more dollars than you have year after year won’t eventually crash the economy? Are you from the AOC mindset where the “solution to the government running out of money is to just print more money?”
Again, deal with the problem immediate. You are the paramedic refusing to treat the current heart attack because the victim smokes which might kill him in 20 years. Deal with the heart attack first.
I have no problem working toward balancing the budget. It won't happen overnight. I suspect it is like an aircraft carrier, it won't turn around on a dime. But it has to be done, and it has to be done through negotiations and compromise. That's how everything gets done in a republic. A dictatorship can dictate, we negotiate and compromise.
Does it? There's a lot of economic fallout from not running deficits during economic downturns.
The real problem is on the revenue side . . . there's not enough money to cover our considerable appetite for government programs.
The problem is that most Keynesians are not Keynesian when the economy is good. We haven't run the surpluses when we grow. We need to start doing that.
Yes, I agree cutting in a downturn is bad. We aren't there yet. But the amount of money we pay to service the debt goes up every year. That leaves us less flexibility to spend when downturns happen.
But it all has to be negotiated. If a downturn happens we can negotiate a push back of some of the cuts and some of the revenue increases.
You ate today, didn't you?
"In the long run we are all dead." - JMK
"Yes, we are. Just not in the way you're thinking about it." - MtM
No. They would have prioritized spending and Democrats would have eventually accepted the House’s proposal. The world doesn’t end because some government spending gets cut off for a few weeks (assuming it would have lasted that long).
What allows them to prioritize spending? No one in Treasury believes it is legal, Ovama had looked into it like he did with the 14th Amendment and the trillion dollar coin. None of those were deemed likely to be legal.
If they were, we could just mint a hundred trillion dollar coins and be done with this charade.
Suppose you ran a small corporation supplying military weaponry and the feds were your biggest client. What would you do if the government said it would pay some people, but not you?
Many corporations, and people, heading to bankruptcy try that, pay some creditors but not others. The others are not happy and go to court. I don't think courts are very supportive of this action. Try it, write some creditors and tell them you have decided to only pay half your creditors and they are not going to be paid. I would be curious what they say.
I read they would be able to. Assuming they couldn’t prioritize the debt, then we default. We defaulted in 1971 when we went off the gold standard and the world didn’t end. It wouldn’t end now.
Not sure on the coin, but it seems silly.
This is irrelevant. The government isn’t a corporation or person and has the ability to do a lot of things that us normal folk can’t do.
