Debt Ceiling Debate

[TysonLPrice]

Whether to raise the debt ceiling is a highly charged political topic and I'm a little apprehensive of starting a thread that might be closed...Also I lean towards it should not be part of any budget negotiations, so I'm leaning democratic.

The consequences of default are enormous. It should not be on the table at all in my opinion. When Trump was in office the republicans raised it three times. Over the course of history hundreds of times. I think there is only one other country that hamstrings themselves like this. An archaic law can upset international trade and some on the right are driving us off a cliff.

I'm not going to post links about the severe consequences of default. I'm not going to post links trying to prove it is republicans fault. And I'm not going to post links trying to prove it is the democrats fault.

This is dangerous stuff and adults need to speak up!

[Niya]

Whether to raise the debt ceiling is a highly charged political topic and I'm a little apprehensive of starting a thread that might be closed

The last couple threads were closed because somehow they always end up on the topic of gender ideology which for reasons that escape me, seem to be contentious which ultimately results in their closing.

I don't have the imagination to see how a topic like this can stray all the way there so this thread might be safe. As for me, I just don't have any strong opinions on this issue one way or the other so I won't be here fighting with liberals again so yall have fun.

[wes4dbt]

Honestly, it just seems like "business as usual". Each side will hold out as long as possible trying to get more of what they want, the news groups will will yell, "the sky will fall", then just enough will get done to save us from disaster.

I know, it sounds pretty cynical. I really do think something needs to be done about our rising debt. But I'm not sure that is even what this stand off is about.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'd say that it comes down to the dysfunctional nature of our system. Each side wants to spend beyond their means. Democrats might be willing to raise taxes, but Republicans will roast them for doing so. Neither side is willing to really tighten their belts or seriously address the issue. The only way the debt can be brought under control is through a strongly bipartisan approach such that neither side can use it as ammunition against the other side. Since a strongly bipartisan approach seems to be out of the question anymore, there's no real reason to think that it will happen. The last time that worked was probably the Graham-Rudman-Hollings bill from the early 90s (or maybe even the 80s, I forget). Bill Clinton was oddly good at that kind of thing, too, as he didn't pillory the Republicans for working with him on that, but those were more collegiate times.

The reason we have the standoff now is that the Republicans think they will be held less accountable if they drive the economy off a cliff. They couldn't do it under Trump, because then nobody else could have taken any of the blame.

[TysonLPrice]

Honestly, it just seems like "business as usual". Each side will hold out as long as possible trying to get more of what they want, the news groups will will yell, "the sky will fall", then just enough will get done to save us from disaster.

I know, it sounds pretty cynical. I really do think something needs to be done about our rising debt. But I'm not sure that is even what this stand off is about.

I don't think so this time. I think there are enough of the very right that are just barely keeping McCarthy as speaker. Some of them believe the government should collapse. Some of them believe it is all BS that the consequences are as bad as they are being told.

I'm thinking what needs to happen is enough repulicans come over to the democrats if they try a "discharge petition".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-debt...ce-vote-clean/

Trump shut down the government until the airports started closing and the republicans backed him:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...pacts-airports

I have no doubt without democratic maneuvering, and some help from moderate republicans, they will run us and the world off a cliff.

[OptionBase1]

In my lifetime, any time there has been divided government, where one party doesn't control the Executive and both Congressional branches of government, this has always happened. And with congresspeople being in office for decades in many cases, you can always find clips where the same member of Congress is against a debt ceiling raise, and then they are for a debt ceiling raise and criticizing those against it.

The R's are saying the same things now that the D's said under Trump, and the R's said under Obama, and the D's said under Bush, and the R's said under Clinton, ...

Debt ceiling stuff is probably the most frequent example of abject, 24 karat political theater, IMO.

[TysonLPrice]

In my lifetime, any time there has been divided government, where one party doesn't control the Executive and both Congressional branches of government, this has always happened. And with congresspeople being in office for decades in many cases, you can always find clips where the same member of Congress is against a debt ceiling raise, and then they are for a debt ceiling raise and criticizing those against it.

The R's are saying the same things now that the D's said under Trump, and the R's said under Obama, and the D's said under Bush, and the R's said under Clinton, ...

Debt ceiling stuff is probably the most frequent example of abject, 24 karat political theater, IMO.

So you do not think with current republican party will let the US default? I think they are so far to the right they will. Whether the democrats keeping the debt ceiling and budget cuts separate is right or wrong both sides are dug in. The last time it happened it backfired on the republicans. The fallout will just amplify our dysfunctional government.

[OptionBase1]

So you do not think with current republican party will let the US default? I think they are so far to the right they will. Whether the democrats keeping the debt ceiling and budget cuts separate is right or wrong both sides are dug in. The last time it happened it backfired on the republicans. The fallout will just amplify our dysfunctional government.

There's probably infinite alternate universes where you just said the exact same thing except the words democrats and republicans are swapped in your message.

Politicians count on the general public having a "political/governmental memory" equivalent to that of a goldfish. Unfortunately, that expectation is not meritless. If Trump were still President, the rhetoric said would be 100% the same, it would just be emanating from the dentures on the other sides of the aisle.

[dilettante]

I expect a lot of heat over this. Electioneering has already begun and there are too many important issues that the uniparty doesn't want to address.

So... more of a political rodeo clown than any real controversy here. All of the actual wheeling and dealing has already been done to keep the donors smiling.

[OptionBase1]

I expect a lot of heat over this. Electioneering has already begun and there are too many important issues that the uniparty doesn't want to address.

So... more of a political rodeo clown than any real controversy here. All of the actual wheeling and dealing has already been done to keep the donors smiling.

Solve the public's problems and you'll be re-elected once. Promise to solve the public's problems and you'll be re-elected for life.

"It's still real to me, dammit" - General Electorate

[Steve R Jones]

Politicians count on the general public having a "political/governmental memory" equivalent to that of a goldfish.

Thank you for the humor... You don't mind if I borrow that line do you

[TysonLPrice]

There's probably infinite alternate universes where you just said the exact same thing except the words democrats and republicans are swapped in your message.

Politicians count on the general public having a "political/governmental memory" equivalent to that of a goldfish. Unfortunately, that expectation is not meritless. If Trump were still President, the rhetoric said would be 100% the same, it would just be emanating from the dentures on the other sides of the aisle.

I get your point and historically I think it is borne out. But my point, and you can't swap democrat for republican, is the current make up of congress, in my opinion, with out a partisan solution, the republicans will allow a default.

[OptionBase1]

I get your point and historically I think it is borne out. But my point, and you can't swap democrat for republican, is the current make up of congress, in my opinion, with out a partisan solution, the republicans will allow a default.

I'll be by later to feed you and clean your bowl.

[TysonLPrice]

I'll be by later to feed you and clean your bowl.

I don't get that...please explain

I'm thinking it isn't pleasant.

[OptionBase1]

I don't get that...please explain

I'm thinking it isn't pleasant.

Me earlier:

Politicians count on the general public having a "political/governmental memory" equivalent to that of a goldfish.

[dilettante]

There is a lot going on that doesn't make sense. One of these is a Treasury Buyback program that might make more sense if other things were done first.

I can't tell whether this is incompetence, conflicting objectives, or something well thought out with goals that aren't obvious because causing problems is the actual goal. Creating a crisis intentionally is hardly a new idea though. Look at the whole Quantitative Easing debacle, which had aims completely opposed to local and regional banking and encouraging heathy saving, instead encouraging unnecessary consumption and racking up debt.

So it isn't purely electioneering, but also financial engineering to prop up dying globalism and increasing income inequality.


You can see it down at the consumer level. People are encouraged to jigger their income tax withholding so when filing rolls around they get a sizeable refund. It is no accident that every year (and previously also every stimmy check and "child care" freebie too) junk shoe sales skyrocket.

Shoe addiction has gotten bizarre. It seems that closets are overflowing, because when the apartment complex a few miles from me stages biannual "community corner sales" most of the tables have a pile of boxes of barely used "athletic" (couch dweller) shoes. Amazingly these sell pretty well too.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I wear my shoes out thoroughly. Unfortunately, that still means that I end up buying a couple pairs a year.

Still, your point is a good one. If you give money to the rich, it gets either invested or donated to philanthropic organizations (which are often not in this country). If you give money to the upper middle class, it gets saved. If you give money to anybody below that, it tends to be spent. Since our economy is largely driven by the purchasing of the people, giving money to the poor is an instant boost to the economy. Whether they buy shoes or something else, may be regional, but in all cases, the money gets spent.

[dilettante]

If you're an investor, outlet malls might be a good place to look for gains. This is probably a reflection of economic pressure, warehouses full of overstock from pandemic shipping impediments, and a decline in low-ball shops (dollar stores and discount retail outlets).

A lot of idle retail locations seem to be turning into them here. Some are older malls, some are old big box stores being divided up inside. We have one here that was a Best Buy, and even the shut down Burger King on the same parking lot is being renovated into some sort of burrito bar thing.

[dday9]

I think my first encounter as an adult that I can remember when we got to the "debt ceiling crisis" was under Obama. The corporate media was going nuts about it would be anarchy and how financial markets would crash. Then when the government shut down for a couple of days (weeks?), it felt like any other day. I remember that a few open air monuments were closed and some WWII vets were told they couldn't go visit them.

Both Democrats and Republicans both want to marginally raise taxes; the difference is where they want the taxes imposed. However, both want to spend money like they're sailors on a 3 day drunk. The differences between the two parties are mostly cultural. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, you could barely put a needle between the two they're so close together.

So TysonLPrice, while I agree with you that this is dangerous stuff to be playing around with I cannot help but sit back and think that you and your generation voted for this uni-party clown show. You get what you vote for.

[TysonLPrice]

[QUOTE=dday9;5604903]I think my first encounter as an adult that I can remember when we got to the "debt ceiling crisis" was under Obama. The corporate media was going nuts about it would be anarchy and how financial markets would crash. Then when the government shut down for a couple of days (weeks?), it felt like any other day. I remember that a few open air monuments were closed and some WWII vets were told they couldn't go visit them.

Both Democrats and Republicans both want to marginally raise taxes; the difference is where they want the taxes imposed. However, both want to spend money like they're sailors on a 3 day drunk. The differences between the two parties are mostly cultural. When it comes to economics and foreign policy, you could barely put a needle between the two they're so close together.

So TysonLPrice, while I agree with you that this is dangerous stuff to be playing around with I cannot help but sit back and think that you and your generation voted for this uni-party clown show. You get what you vote for.

Well it has been going on well before I could vote:

It has since been raised more than 100 times, including 78 times since 1960 and 18 times in the eight years Ronald Reagan was president. But in the past few decades, as the forces of partisanship have grown stronger in Congress, the debt limit has become something else.

And although I do cross political parties, which you obviously didn't consider, both parties have always been a part of it. Democrats and Republicans are equally at it. You seem to have absolved yourself from the blame you are trying to put on me. Who did you write in? Micky Mouse? He always gets some votes.

[Shaggy Hiker]

DDay is a Libertarian and votes as such, presumably. There ARE other candidates on the ballot.

[TysonLPrice]

DDay is a Libertarian and votes as such, presumably. There ARE other candidates on the ballot.

OK then...that makes him blaming me and my generation for the problems just fine. I guess the absolves him of anything politically wrong. Pretty good plan.

[dday9]

But in the past few decades, as the forces of partisanship have grown stronger in Congress, the debt limit has become something else.

Almost as if the government kept spending money and just increasing their credit limit every time it's hit.

And although I do cross political parties, which you obviously didn't consider, both parties have always been a part of it. Democrats and Republicans are equally at it.

To be honest, I don't care who you vote for. Pretending that republicans and democrats are diametrically opposed on anything other than cultural issues is delusional.

You seem to have absolved yourself from the blame you are trying to put on me. Who did you write in? Micky Mouse? He always gets some votes.

If you are genuinely asking who I voted for, for president I voted Evan McMullin(I) in 2016, and Jo Jorgenson(L) in 2020. For governor I voted for David Vitter(R) in 2015 and John Bel Edwards in 2019(D). For any other position I look for an L behind their name and if there isn't any running then I just skip it because I'm just partisan like that. Edit - luckily 3rd party ballot access is very easy to get in Louisiana so it isn't very often that I actually skip voting for a position. Mainly it happens in ultra local elections like parish councilman or something.

[TysonLPrice]

I cannot help but sit back and think that you and your generation voted for this uni-party clown show. You get what you vote for.

It just seems that kind of condemnation of a generation, presumably because you don't vote for either of the major two parties and have excluded yourself, is a bit of a leap to me. I'm a "Baby Boomer", maybe your are just blaming us.

[wes4dbt]

It just seems that kind of condemnation of a generation, presumably because you don't vote for either of the major two parties and have excluded yourself, is a bit of a leap to me. I'm a "Baby Boomer", maybe your are just blaming us.

Feels like an insult to our generation to me. Hopefully he wasn't just attacking you.

[TysonLPrice]

Feels like an insult to our generation to me. Hopefully he wasn't just attacking you.

Probably the only reason I'm going on about it is he singled me out specifically, but, it did feel like a cheap shot

Or it could be that damn bug...it gets me all the time. I got a tiny ant on my screen the other day and and to laugh.

[wes4dbt]

DDay is a Libertarian and votes as such, presumably. There ARE other candidates on the ballot.

Voting for the OTHER candidates is the same as writing in Mickey Mouse. There is no chance of them winning. But at least you can say you voted and feel free to blame other people for the "clown show".

[dday9]

... There is no chance of them winning. But at least you can say you voted and feel free to blame other people for the "clown show".

Then you get what you vote for: a uni-party alliance that would rather divide its populous on culture lines so that one of the two parties can remain in power ever 10 years all while putting the people at risk of nuclear war and economic ruin.

So yes, I would much prefer voting for candidates that talk about issues neither republicans or democrats would like to touch. If nothing else it helps inch the conversation away from irrelevant issues that do nothing more than embolden the cultural issues that artificially split the voting pool that make up both parties.

[wes4dbt]

Then you get what you vote for: a uni-party alliance that would rather divide its populous on culture lines so that one of the two parties can remain in power ever 10 years all while putting the people at risk of nuclear war and economic ruin.

There is no "uni-party". But I do wish that a Libertarian was elected so they would have to do something besides sit on the sidelines and complain and point out the "uni-party" faults.

I don't know why you think the fact the US is basically a two party system is Ty's generation fault. How are the prior and more current generation not involved? Do you feel your hands are clean because your a Libertarian? Or that anyone who votes Rep/dem are blind to our governments current problems. They're not blind, they are still engaged.

Edit: I should add. I don't have a problem with criticizing the government. I have a problem with blaming Ty and his generation.

[TysonLPrice]

Then you get what you vote for: a uni-party alliance that would rather divide its populous on culture lines so that one of the two parties can remain in power ever 10 years all while putting the people at risk of nuclear war and economic ruin.

So yes, I would much prefer voting for candidates that talk about issues neither republicans or democrats would like to touch. If nothing else it helps inch the conversation away from irrelevant issues that do nothing more than embolden the cultural issues that artificially split the voting pool that make up both parties.

It isn't so bad a the local level and even the State. It seems you really can't break into national politics without being part of one club or another.

[dilettante]

Don't worry. With local news disappearing you won't even have to worry about candidates for offices near the bottom of the pyramid, they'll rarely be seen much less critiqued. Most people vote for branding anyway, not representation.

[wes4dbt]

It isn't so bad a the local level and even the State. It seems you really can't break into national politics without being part of one club or another.

It's strange that the Independent party can't make a better showing. They have the largest percentage of registered voters. I've been registered as all of them at one time or another. lol

[techgnome]

It's strange that the Independent party can't make a better showing. They have the largest percentage of registered voters. I've been registered as all of them at one time or another. lol

This is why:

Voting for the OTHER candidates is the same as writing in Mickey Mouse. There is no chance of them winning. But at least you can say you voted and feel free to blame other people for the "clown show".

It's the "wasted vote" mentality...


-tg

[Shaggy Hiker]

If you are genuinely asking who I voted for, for president I voted Evan McMullin(I) in 2016, and Jo Jorgenson(L) in 2020. For governor I voted for David Vitter(R) in 2015 and John Bel Edwards in 2019(D). For any other position I look for an L behind their name and if there isn't any running then I just skip it because I'm just partisan like that. Edit - luckily 3rd party ballot access is very easy to get in Louisiana so it isn't very often that I actually skip voting for a position. Mainly it happens in ultra local elections like parish councilman or something.

Do you actually get multiple candidates for every race? Many of the races on my local ballot will have only one candidate for a seat, but that's still better than when I voted in Marsing, Idaho. Down there, several of the seats had no candidates at all. I wrote in a buddy of mine, cause I thought it would be hilarious if he won a seat in a county he didn't even live in. I didn't bother submitting any other identifying information. Had I put some thought into it, I might have gotten him elected without him even knowing he was running.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's strange that the Independent party can't make a better showing. They have the largest percentage of registered voters. I've been registered as all of them at one time or another. lol

In one of the recent local elections, I took the time to diligently dig into all the candidates running. Frankly, if you hid their pictures, I'm not sure that even they would be able to pick which one was their statement, even though they were asked several questions and answered them in detail. There wasn't enough difference between them to measure.

Usually, this state manages to put forward some real wackos, like the one guy who was opposed to education aside from a bit of Bible learnin' for the boys. For local races, they're all just pragmatic. That may be the case everywhere. You usually aren't going to change much of anything at the city level. Your authority is just too limited to do anything meaningful. Even less so in a particularly homogenous part of homogenous Idaho.

[OptionBase1]

I think most American's would identify as politically non-binary.

(Slowly backing away from thread...)

[Shaggy Hiker]

Drag us into the dirt why don't you.

I'm a deficit hawk, but I do understand the point of view that a certain amount of US debt is a good thing. Heck, I own some of it, myself. I'd rather that the deficit was reduced, but the debt ceiling is a hack that does nothing but cause problems. It wasn't always around, and should be abolished. It was probably intended to keep the US debt from spiraling, but it clearly has been a total failure at that, as everybody has pointed out.

If you aren't going to be responsible with your spending, what's the point in having some artificial rule that doesn't actually accomplish anything except cause fights every couple years with the same result: It will be increased.

[dday9]

Do you actually get multiple candidates for every race? Many of the races on my local ballot will have only one candidate for a seat, but that's still better than when I voted in Marsing, Idaho. Down there, several of the seats had no candidates at all. I wrote in a buddy of mine, cause I thought it would be hilarious if he won a seat in a county he didn't even live in. I didn't bother submitting any other identifying information. Had I put some thought into it, I might have gotten him elected without him even knowing he was running.

Yeah we typically get 6ish candidates for most races, occasionally it will only be 2 or 3 but more often than not it is more.

Louisiana has a system in place where you only win outright if you garner 50% + 1 vote. After that it goes to a runoff for the top two vote getters which (practically) guarantees a 50%+1. That's why during the gubernatorial races I voted R the first time and D the second time, it literally came down to a lesser of two evils because there was no 3rd choice.

[OptionBase1]

Drag us into the dirt why don't you.

I'm a deficit hawk, but I do understand the point of view that a certain amount of US debt is a good thing. Heck, I own some of it, myself. I'd rather that the deficit was reduced, but the debt ceiling is a hack that does nothing but cause problems. It wasn't always around, and should be abolished. It was probably intended to keep the US debt from spiraling, but it clearly has been a total failure at that, as everybody has pointed out.

If you aren't going to be responsible with your spending, what's the point in having some artificial rule that doesn't actually accomplish anything except cause fights every couple years with the same result: It will be increased.

I think the vast majority of voters of all political affiliations would agree with every word of your post.

It's just a political melee that everyone involved secretly loves being a part of. "Oh sweet, we get to do the debt ceiling fight soon? Which side are we on again?"

I don't see anything changing anytime soon to eliminate or automatically increase the ceiling.

[wes4dbt]

Drag us into the dirt why don't you.

I'm a deficit hawk, but I do understand the point of view that a certain amount of US debt is a good thing. Heck, I own some of it, myself. I'd rather that the deficit was reduced, but the debt ceiling is a hack that does nothing but cause problems. It wasn't always around, and should be abolished. It was probably intended to keep the US debt from spiraling, but it clearly has been a total failure at that, as everybody has pointed out.

If you aren't going to be responsible with your spending, what's the point in having some artificial rule that doesn't actually accomplish anything except cause fights every couple years with the same result: It will be increased.

I'd agree with all of that. But I'd add, fixing the problem seems tremendously complex. There are so many groups promoting funding increases for there causes. Many of them I agree with. There is so much infrastructure that we need to catch up on. Then there's the no tax increases group. How do you "be responsible with your spending". Coming to an agreement of what is a responsible use of our taxes doesn't even seem possible. Even if you simplify it to, "don't spend more than you collect", your still left with the question of, should we spend less or tax more.