Debt Ceiling Debate

[TysonLPrice]

I mean it took me less than 2 minutes to compile all of that, I'm not butthurt about it.

Hurt was never my intention, just some fun. I thought I'd throw out some bait and see if you bit. I was surprised you didn't see what I was doing but I'm guessing you didn't realize that I really felt slighted by your post.

[dday9]

To be honest, I completely forgot about it.

Come to think of it I can't remember what I ate last night.

[TysonLPrice]

To be honest, I completely forgot about it.

Come to think of it I can't remember what I ate last night.

It was forty some posts ago

I'm still holding a grudge against the first grade bully...

[TysonLPrice]

There is a framework...we'll see where it goes from here. Senator Lindsey Graham wants a ninety days extension to review the parts he doesn't like. It isn't even out of the house yet.

[dday9]

... I saw where Biden cut his trip short. I'm wondering if there is somewhere I can place bets on what date the debt ceiling will be raised. I predicted a few posts back it'd be ~10 days, someone hold me to it.

Well a deal was struck last night. So it took 13 days, I was off by 3 days.

[TysonLPrice]

Well a deal was struck last night. So it took 13 days, I was off by 3 days.

It hasn't been raised yet. It needs to get out of committee, then voted on in the house, then the Senate, and finally the President.

[dday9]

I thought that it was out of committee.

Edit - Yeah, it is. It is going to the House today.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's passed the second easiest hurdle it has to get over. The easiest is if it gets to the Presidents desk.

[dilettante]

And I thought that I was going to have to make the "Rubber Stamp Joe" comment.

[TysonLPrice]

To me there are not enough "No" votes on either side of the aisle to kill it in the house. If I heard right a single Senator can stop it from progressing. A couple days ago Lindsey Graham suggested a ninety day raising of the debt to review it further. Moron

[dilettante]

Debt ceiling deal could fuel Biden economy’s problems

It is hard to pull out a quote or two there. It all sounds like more debt is going to be bad for everyone, in part by working in opposition to many measures underway attempting to relive stresses in a system already in trouble.

It sounds like the free boutique chocolate ice cream really isn't free after all.

[Shaggy Hiker]

And I thought that I was going to have to make the "Rubber Stamp Joe" comment.

It would be beyond bizarre for Biden to spend all this time negotiating, get this bruising fight in Congress, and then just say, <your choice of words here> " it!" and veto it. Even Trump might not be that arbitrary and capricious.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I've always been a deficit hawk, but not a strident one any longer. The arguments in favor of a certain amount of debt I find compelling. Basically, it should be something to be used when necessary. Since Reagan, irresponsible budgeting has been the rule. There was a brief break under Clinton, but it wasn't so much his doing as that the rise of the computer boosted the economy in ways that those in charge couldn't mismanage...until W showed how to do so, and it's been a steady decline since then.

[dilettante]

I think that much of what helped Clinton coast was him spending on the "peace dividend" after the Soviet system collapsed. Sadly that ran out when they recaptured it based on 9-11 (whether real or purposely concocted I won't speculate upon). Now we have Ukraine.

The computer? Seems to me that bubble burst hard about the same time 9-11 "happened."

Ok, I suppose I am speculating. But I'm not taking a hard position on that.

[dday9]

All the money that was supposed to be saved by winding down the war in Afghanistan has now shifted to Ukraine. Last I saw we were on pace to exceed it and as recently as this week another $300,000,000 was sent as aid.

[dilettante]

Follow the spending. California, Virginia, New York, and Texas gobble up over 90% of direct military spending. Everything else pales. These should be called The Four Horsemen.

[FunkyDexter]

Surely they should collectively be called "One of the Four Horsemen". But that's just my inner pedant speaking.

I guess you could call each a leg.

[dilettante]

Good catch. It was a more than strained analogy, it just doesn't fit at all. Easier to just call them out as war profiteers standing on both the necks of their peers and their victims.

[dday9]

Looks like the house passed it.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The computer? Seems to me that bubble burst hard about the same time 9-11 "happened."

Sort of. The dot com bubble burst, which took down a whole lot of tech, but it WAS a bubble. Any rational person realized that some of the dot com businesses were...not rational. Still, what probably benefitted Clinton the most was not the dot com part of computers. Any significant change in business as a whole (aside from rolling disasters, or course), has tended to spur the economy. The 90s, when Clinton was president, was the time that we went from having calculators to everybody having a computer on their desk. That fueled the irrational exuberance that became the dot com bubble, and Clinton managed to leave office just before that exuberance ended.

Timing is everything. Presidents get credited for things they don't do, and blamed for things they have no control over.

However, Clinton had a hostile Congress, at times. Doing nothing in the good times, does tend to reduce deficits, as spending stays relatively flat, while revenues increase. Normally, with a windfall, politicians either want to spend more or give back. Clinton couldn't spend more because Congress wasn't with him, for the most part (they actually worked pretty well together by all sides finding center ground, it just wasn't expensive ground). W took a different approach. He removed the surplus by cutting taxes. In theory, that's a good thing, but not if the surplus is an aberration that will correct itself. By the time he got his tax cut passed, it was pretty clear that the correction was coming...and then there was 9/11, which was followed by a huge jump in spending. That was unpredictable, but I'd say that the tax cut was already irresponsible, as driving down the deficit for a few more years would have been my preference. Use the windfall to pay off debts, and you will have more money in the long run.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Looks like the house passed it.

By a surprisingly wide margin. At this point, I think Congress will need to find something else to fight about by Monday.

[TysonLPrice]

Looks like the house passed it.

Mostly by Democrats, and it was a Republican bill

[dilettante]

Use the windfall to pay off debts, and you will have more money in the long run.

Makes sense now as much as then. Time to back off sending stuff into the European's conflict. I think we've dumped our old junk there and replaced it with new by now.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Not quite yet. I feel there are some beneficial side effects to that war.

[dday9]

Now it passed the Senate.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's not the last minute, yet. How could they DO that?!?!?!?!

[dilettante]

Makes one wonder who has one eye on the clock and the other on the scripts.

Showrunner

[FunkyDexter]

Now it passed the Senate.

I called it right. Told you they'd pass it. (Before I changed my mind and said they wouldn't pass it). My unbeaten record continues.

I do wonder whether McCarthy's speakership will survive this. Boebert, Gaetz et al were pretty explicit that they'd call for a no confidence motion (can't remember what you guys call it so that's probably the wrong term) if he ever relied on Democratic support so they'll likely do that, if only for the performance of it. Would he survive that motion? He would if the Dems decide to bail him out but they'd no doubt be asking for some heavy concession in return. Could get interesting.

[wes4dbt]

I called it right. Told you they'd pass it. (Before I changed my mind and said they wouldn't pass it). My unbeaten record continues.

I do wonder whether McCarthy's speakership will survive this. Boebert, Gaetz et al were pretty explicit that they'd call for a no confidence motion (can't remember what you guys call it so that's probably the wrong term) if he ever relied on Democratic support so they'll likely do that, if only for the performance of it. Would he survive that motion? He would if the Dems decide to bail him out but they'd no doubt be asking for some heavy concession in return. Could get interesting.

I don't doubt they might try to oust McCarthy for the performance of it. I'd be surprised if much came of it. Not sure the Dems want McCarthy out. The replacement could be worse. But then again, the Dems might want to see it happen just for the performance of it. lol

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm not sure whether the Dems even CAN help him out. Poison the well, perhaps, but help him out? I'm not sure what that would take.

[dday9]

Yeah, I would expect some more charades with no changes actually being made.

McCarthy is a stereotypical opposition leader in the "uniparty" system I talked about earlier. Because the democrats hold the executive branch and the senate but the republicans only hold the house, a very predictable game gets played: his record is incredibly moderate plus willing to make deals but he gets to show that he is "pushing back" in speeches. What winds up happening in this game is that democrats and republicans can both point to their bases and say "see this is why we need to win next time."

So I suspect the democrats don't want him out until they have the majority again and the vast majority of republicans don't want him out either.

[Shaggy Hiker]

He's spineless, but he's shown that he is willing to negotiate, which I do appreciate. Hardliners are a pain in the butt. If you don't have the numbers to do anything, then refusing to negotiate is just a form of hostage taking. Those always end in either negotiations or death and destruction.

[TysonLPrice]

Another self inflicted crisis avoided...WHEW!

Where are the adults?

[FunkyDexter]

He's spineless, but he's shown that he is willing to negotiate, which I do appreciate. Hardliners are a pain in the butt.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that. Looking back at the UK in my lifetime, the country has always done well when moderates are in power rather than hard line ideologues. To be fair, we've generally only seen hard line ideologues in power on the right since the 70s but the left were pretty disastrous back then and I personally think Corbyn (or more accurately, his followers) would have been pretty bad if they'd managed to get in. Mind you, they'd have to go some to be worse than Thatcher, Johnson or May.

Blair, Cameron and Sunak are the obvious moderates from the last 50 years and, while there's much to criticise about all of them, on the whole they did a pretty decent job (domestically at least... lets just brush over Blair's foreign policy mistakes)

[dilettante]

Tony Blair? Moderate? His closest political analog today is probably Justin Trudeau. Doesn't Blair hold the record for scandals and corruption?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Lettuce all forget about Truss, too.

[TysonLPrice]

A head of you on that...

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was wondering: Wilt she even make the list?

[TysonLPrice]

I was wondering: Wilt she even make the list?

Not a shred of a chance...

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well, she was certainly quick to leaf.