Debt

Blame Both Parties if the Federal Government Shuts Down in December

Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, while Republicans occasionally remember they're against big government spending.

|

The battle over the federal debt ceiling that's currently being fought by government officials and legislators is yet another example of the political posturing that's so prevalent these days. On one side, you have Democrats, who believe that the debt ceiling should be increased automatically or removed altogether, no matter what level of debt Uncle Sam accumulates, and that it should be done with the support of Republicans. On the other side, you have Republicans, who occasionally remember that they are against big government spending, especially if they're in the minority when the debt ceiling needs to be raised.

Consider Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) railing against Republicans for saying they won't vote for a bill that funds the government until December and includes a debt ceiling suspension. He accuses them of wanting the federal government to shut down and to default on its debt.

Don't fall for it. Yes, defaults are bad—which is why nobody wants that.

Thankfully, there's a difference between refusing to raise the debt ceiling and defaulting on our debt. What's more, as Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute reminds us, Democrats currently hold the White House, the House, and the Senate, and they could have raised the debt ceiling all alone without the Republicans. All they had to do, he writes, was to "include debt limit instructions in either of the two budget resolutions that they passed this year," allowing them to increase "Washington's borrowing authority to the reconciliation bills—which are not subject to filibuster and thus can pass the Senate with only the 50 Democratic votes."

Yet they probably didn't do that so their members wouldn't have to cast a vote acknowledging all of the spending and borrowing they approved. But now they're dragging Republicans into their mess, hoping to either get political cover for raising the debt ceiling or let the GOP get the blame for a government shutdown.

Incidentally, Republicans aren't wrong to be outraged by the $3.5 trillion spending bill Democrats are pushing through reconciliation, most of it unpaid for by those who will receive the benefits, piled on top of trillions of dollars for COVID-19-relief spending and an already vast deficit. Republicans argue that blocking this level of spending is another reason to oppose raising the debt ceiling.

Democrats correctly contend that there is a cost to not raising the debt ceiling immediately, though there's also a cost to allowing this astronomical spending to go through. It's just not as obvious because most of the costs will materialize in years to come. But it doesn't make it any less immoral.

That's why, back in 2011, I favored using the debt ceiling as a pressure point to extract some entitlement reforms. The political environment was completely different back then. Most Republicans seemed to be on board with the idea that some fiscal responsibility was prudent, and so were many Americans who made overspending a theme of the 2010 midterm elections. However, the strategy failed when all we got were weak spending caps that Republicans and Democrats repeatedly lifted if they got in the way of their insatiable hunger for spending.

This is not an argument for giving up or getting rid of the debt ceiling limit. But it is an argument to remind readers that we wouldn't be having these fights if it weren't for the numerous expansions of the entitlement state (programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) approved by past Congresses and administrations. These provisions are impacting us today and will continue to impact us into the future, so long as both sides refuse to implement reforms.

Democrats have long said they won't do it. However, those Republicans complaining about President Joe Biden's spending spree are part of the problem, too. Just look at what happened when Republicans were in power. Former President George W. Bush oversaw the creation of Medicare Part D. Under former President Donald Trump, Republicans refused to touch Social Security and Medicare, and they embraced the creation of a federal paid leave program and the equivalent of a universal basic income for kids. There's no denying that Republicans are part of our fiscal problem, too.

Raising the debt ceiling without a strong commitment to entitlement reform is irresponsible, but empty political gestures accomplish nothing, either. Short of a massive burst of growth triggered by some future innovation, our only option is to convince the American people that more spending will ultimately come to bite them and their children in the behind. There is no better time than the debt ceiling showdown for that.

COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: 21 Federal Agencies Manage 200 Different Diet-Related Programs, Leading to Overlap and Chaos

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. *throw a* party if the federal government shuts down in December.

    1. Came in to say shouldn’t Blame be changed to Congratulate?

      1. Indeed.

        And, uh, Reason, McConnell already explained the position. Democrats wanted to pass all of this without Republican votes. Fine. They can do ALL of it without the votes.

        1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FOR And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

          Try it, you won’t regret it!……………READ MORE

        2. So McConnell will let the government get shutdown, they will spend maybe 2 weeks to a month negotiating and pass a bill that extends the existing spending limits while raising the debt ceiling but only for 3 months or so they can negotiate further.

      2. I will blame both parties if it stays open and continues the current shitshow.

          1. +10000000; Another YES to that premises.

      3. Was thinking ‘Celebrate’

      4. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening… FOR And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s Has awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

        Try it, you won’t regret it!…………Visit Here

    2. Blame both parties? Yes, they are to blame for using the power granted to them by the people. They should be ashamed. They should tell the voters to get off their knees, grow up and self-govern themselves. But no, they campaign for political power, lie their ass off to get it, then use it to enrich themselves, while impoverishing the guilty voters and the innocent non-voters, the sovereigns who despise rulers, bureaucrats, officials.

    3. Only if it is for good. I can’t take the constant teasing…

  2. Reason articles in 2021:

    Something happens
    Hand wringing
    Both sides
    Potentially include 2-3 tweets

    – sign

    1. translation: weezen wazn’t mean to democwats meens they be democwrats!

      1. If you still can’t blame Biden or the left for anything that has happened the last months when even MSNBC and CNN can… your name might be sarcasmic.

      2. I mean, THEY (the Dems) are in charge.

        You’d think they’d warrant SOME fire for the problems.

        1. sarc is an infantile intellect, still trying with every lie he can invent, to justify his raging TDS.
          And failing; he remains a TDS-addled piece of lefty shit.

    2. Golden Mean Fallacy:

      The fallacy is not merely saying that compromise between opposing viewpoints is good. It is saying that extreme solutions are never reasonable or correct, and the correct solution can always be found in the middle. For example: some say cyanide is a lethal and dangerous poison and should never be consumed (unless you want to die). The opposite position would be that cyanide is nutritious and beneficial to your health and should be consumed frequently. The Golden Mean Fallacy would state that cyanide should therefore be consumed in moderation.

      One “benefit” of the Golden Mean Fallacy is not having to pick a side. It’s easier to simply declare both sides to be at fault and present yourself as the reasonable middle-ground between them. That way you get to feel superior to twice as many people, and at the same time avoid excessively alienating any of them.

      See basically any post by sarcasmic.

    3. Sometime it is both sides. Neither side makes any serious attempt to stop increasing debt, let alone cut spending. Yeah, Democrats are way worse, but Republicans are useless at best.

      1. I will take useless over actively parasitic any day.

  3. When this train runs out of track, does anyone think that Bezos, or Soros, or Koch are going to pay the price? Of course not. The people who will pay the price are those who have no recourse except reliance on Social Security or Medicare. Even those of us saving away will see a significant loss of income when the Government institutes some sort of Means Testing for Social Security.

    Meanwhile, the Elites of the country will have already got THEIR money. They aren’t giving the Fed their money in hopes of a meager payout in 20 years. They are getting right now as subsidies for their electric cars, solar panels and (coming soon) federal subsidies for “land conservation plots” (aka lordly estates) in the mountains. They are getting services in kind right now as the FBI shelters them from investigations, or targets their rivals.

    To the extent that the Bush’s and Romney factions of the GOP have enabled this game, they should be ashamed. But I am not surprised. Romney, too, will be just fine when the fit hits the shan. As will the Bush Kids, and the McConnells.

    1. When it runs out of track? You mean back in 1995 with the Gephardt Rule?

  4. Republicans are in no way against raising the debt ceiling. They just want the Dems to do it by themselves so the GOP can campaign against it.

    Meanwhile Dems insist on a bipartisan vote for the same reasons.

    This isn’t a policy debate.

    1. Agree with this comment. Problem is that everything is about politics and not about getting problems solved. We are dealing with parties controlled by the extremes and not the middle. Parties more worried about their base than their country.

      1. It’s not about being “controlled by the extremes”. They are being controlled by the Elites.

        What incentive do the Republicans have to “solve” entitlements? Nothing. Because they can continue to use it as a wedge issue in each election. Entitlement Reform Wonk, Paul Ryan, went from a net worth of $1.5 MM to almost $8 MM over ten years of failing to do really anything to rein in our budget.

        What incentive do the Democrats have to “solve” the Immigration problem? Nothing. Because they can continue to get votes by saying they can fix the crisis. Since 2007 Nancy Pelosi has promised- and failed to deliver- comprehensive immigration reform while her net worth went from ~$16 Million to ~$190 Million.

        Our Elites play us for chumps, siphoning off money and graft while we give them bucks a plenty. Their every stand is a political ploy to stay in power while they enrich themselves.

        1. How in the everloving fuck are entitlements a “wedge issue” redounding to the benefit of any Republican, ever? The hit piece was *against* Paul Ryan re: grandma over the cliff.

          This both sides bullshit is tiresome, but that’s not all it is. I notice you’re in these comments bitching about Ryan, McConnell, Romney, Bush, et al.

          And NOT a certain claimed billionaire who did less than nothing about runaway entitlement spending: he promised to continue it, staking out the leftmost position in the 2016 Republican primary vis a vis fiscal matters. Any claim he has to ultimately addressing fiscal matters is coterminous with Paul Ryan’s, who actually made the bill happen (despite a certain claimed billionaire’s eleventh hour monkey wrenching for no reason).

          If you think attacking the wing of the (only) party that can do math is going to get the fiscal house in order, you’re either a liar or a fool.

          If you’re a liar, is it that you have just given up on a non-catastrophic solution to these fiscal problems, and figure destroying the Republican party gets you more in the post apocalyptic scenario once we’re eating each other?

          1. What? Who said anything about destroying the Republian party?

          2. “How in the everloving fuck are entitlements a “wedge issue” redounding to the benefit of any Republican, ever?”

            There are a significant number of Independents who actually care about fiscal sanity. The Republicans regularly have sounded the alarm of fiscal sanity in an attempt to sway independents to their side. It is the whole reason Ryan existed- it was his schtick.

            “This both sides bullshit is tiresome, ”

            I don’t see this as both sides. I see it as Elites vs the rest of us. That you want to split the Elites into Reds and Blues- despite the fact that all of them, together, have delivered bipartisan forever wars, spiraling bipartisan deficits and an unaccountable bipartisan surveillance state that will snoop on your life while protecting molesters like Epstein and Nassar- that’s not my fault. Maybe what is so tiresome is your perspective that this is a red v blue thing.

            “And NOT a certain claimed billionaire who did less than nothing about runaway entitlement spending: he promised to continue it, staking out the leftmost position in the 2016 Republican primary vis a vis fiscal matters.”

            Yes Trump was horrible on spending, but he also noted at the start of his campaign that he was not interested whatsoever in tackling entitlements or the budget. That is lamentable, but not the point of my post. That he was terrible on the budget doesn’t change the fact that Paul Ryan (and countless other Republicans) have demanded fiscal sanity while enriching themselves and delivering the opposite year over year.

            “If you think attacking the wing of the (only) party that can do math is going to get the fiscal house in order, you’re either a liar or a fool.”

            If you think that supporting that wing again and again will somehow result in a different result, then you are insane or Charlie Brown gullible.

            Seriously, Paul Ryan rose to be Speaker of the House and never did shit to rein in the budget even a little. You can argue that it was never possible or you can argue that he was the wrong guy, but you cannot deny that he increased his net worth 600% while delivering exactly ZERO on those promises. If you want to keep kicking at that football, that’s fine, but don’t get mad at me for pointing out the absurdity of it all.

            1. Not defending Ryan here, but…..

              As I recall Ryan proposed a 10 year plan to balance the budget back in 2013. (Not nearly good enough, I know). Dems called it “draconian”. (They love that word). Discussion over.

              Not saying Ryan did his job. But he never had a chance anyway.

              1. “…Dems called it “draconian”. (They love that word). Discussion over…”
                Queen Asshole, shitstain, turd all agree: hang a focus-group approved name on it and it’s done!
                Look at how that lying POS Obo got his ‘medical fuckup’ passed by lying.

            2. You have no idea my disappointment to find one of the more thoughtful commenters around here is commiserating with the stupids (do you think you’re going to turn some of the Trumpkins with this “us vs the elites” bullshit?). I’ll gladly defend Paul Ryan, warts and all, against this garbage. To wit:

              So, your claim is Trump avowedly leading us off the fiscal cliff is neither worse nor relevant when your chosen topic is Paul Ryan not accomplishing as much as we’d hope, on the front of fiscal sanity?

              I’m sorry (really, I am) Paul Ryan’s 4 years as majority leader were:

              – 1.5 under Obama, where nothing could happen
              – Following a long and sordid history of budget-by-emergency where a House majority’s ability to do anything but lurch to each continuing resolution
              – 2.5 years under Trump, who never met a long term process he couldn’t upend to the detriment of those who rely on him, let alone a budget he didn’t want to blow the caps off
              – Reluctantly accepted by Ryan, on the condition that he be supported in pursing his goals, in light of the fact that it was to be
              – Entirely over a fractious caucus, which
              – Was constantly being undermined by non-fiscally-conservative twits like *exactly* the same people who supported Trump when faced with the unmitigated horror of Ted Cruz, or someone else who would actually cut spending, getting the 2016 nomination

              But aside from those unfortunate circumstances which in my view fully explain the outcome, I’m still going to need you to identify one fucking thing Paul Ryan did in office to enrich himself – or do anything,* really – instead of pursue the goals you claim to wish he had furthered.

              * I actually do have an “anything really” that he did, to share, but it’s not fiscal in nature. You’ll get the prize if you mitigate my disappointment.

              If you hate Paul Ryan’s wealth, the increase in which is the *only* thing you brought up other than his not single-handedly delivering you fiscal sanity, then good news, Trump claims to have more, so you should hate him more by that metric (and he made a hell of a lot more revenue than Ryan’s congressional salary *during* his office – why were government employees continuously lodged in his properties?)

              It should come as no surprise, there’s not 51% of the country for fiscal sanity. Paul Ryan’s attempt to get the House back to regular order for the budget was the first step to slicing and dicing interest groups within Congress to start excising items, and he couldn’t even get that far because of the Orange One, whom “you aren’t talking about” while you happen to be aping his anti-elitist tub thumping bullshit.

              As to the parties, both sides, and your petulance about red vs blue:

              You are furthering the destruction of the Republican party by bitching about the people who are the only chance of it being a vehicle for fiscal sanity, and you are throwing cover for Trump, who is the opposite. By the way, the people who you’re criticizing only have a greater claim to elite status by being similarly wealthy as Trump, but not repulsive assholes.

              Now, as to why that matters. I thought you were smart enough to recognize that the two party system is an emergent property of the U.S. Constitution. There’s no world in which railing about both sides gets you what you want. And there’s also no world in which choosing a different metric than the existing parties will reshape BOTH parties at once into the “us vs them” of your choosing/current bullshit.

              All it will do is weaken one party and strengthen the other. Perhaps you will help weaken one party enough to destroy it.

              Guess which existing party is strengthened by bitching about “the elites,” on the apparently bare basis of wealth, *to the exclusion of Trump*

              1. One more TDS-addled asshole.

              2. You seem to be writing as if Overt is pro-Trump. Anything but.

                And one difference is Trump made his fortune BEFORE politics. The others listed here…after they got into politics. That is a difference, a huge one, to me.

      2. Everything is about politics……in politics. Think long and hard about that gem?

        1. When you’re 50-going-on-15, it sound DEEP, man!

    2. It is a policy debate because the Democrats want to set it at the level to cover their 5T in proposed spending (3.5T on their reconciliation bill and the 1.3T for the infrastructure bill). GOP has said no to that level.

    3. Republicans are in no way against raising the debt ceiling. They just want the Dems to do it by themselves so the GOP can campaign against it.

      Republicans would be happy to raise the debt ceiling if the money was spent on something sensible.

      Given the ludicrous bills Democrats are pushing, Republicans don’t want to sign the check.

      And, yes, that is a policy debate.

  5. Headline needs an editor. Change “Blame” to “Thank”.

    1. ^THIS^

    2. Sorry, unacceptable usage per the Reason stylebook.

    3. If a government shutdown actually meant that government shut down and stopped spending money, yes, that would be great. But that’s not what happens. Everyone gets their back pay and it probably ends up costing more in the end.

  6. “Republicans aren’t wrong to be outraged by the $3.5 trillion spending bill Democrats are pushing through reconciliation, most of it unpaid for by those who will receive the benefits, piled on top of trillions of dollars for COVID-19-relief spending and an already vast deficit. Republicans argue that blocking this level of spending is another reason to oppose raising the debt ceiling.”

    —Veronique de Rugy

    This is dead on, but we should be clear about the end game here. If the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill isn’t passed on September 27, the House Democrats and Joe Manchin will pass the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill anyway on September 27th. Once those nine moderate House Democrats and Joe Manchin get their infrastructure bill passed, they will not support the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill.

    If there’s no $3.5 budget reconciliation bill on September 28, there probably won’t be one–and McConnell and the Republicans know that. The Republicans will still have September 28, September 29, and September 30 to raise the debt ceiling before the U.S. government starts missing interest payments, social security payments, payments to disabled veterans, and the like.

    The Republicans are making a principled stance against the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, but if that bill dies on September 27th, the Republicans will raise the debt ceiling. There is a difference between being principled and political suicide. Meanwhile, if the Democrats come together to pass the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill on September 27, they’ll just include raising the debt ceiling in the reconciliation bill.

    I don’t see any likely outcome where the debt ceiling isn’t raised. In fact, McConnell’s bet that forcing the Democrats to include raising the debt ceiling in the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill may backfire. If the White House, Pelosi, and Schumer can convince the nine moderate House Democrats and Joe Manchin that the only way to avoid a federal default on interest payments, etc. is to vote for the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill–with the debt ceiling raise included in it–they may be more likely than less likely to vote for the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill.

    If McConnell is smart, he’s already communicating to moderate Democrats in the House and Joe Manchin that he will vote to raise the debt ceiling if and when the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill fails on September 27.

    1. The fact is there will be a reconciliation bill. It will not be $3.5T but it will be something. Joe Manchin will push for less but at some point he will have to accept an amount. Same for Progressives at some point they have to let the bipartisan bill pass.

      As for the Republicans at some point they cave, because they always do. They make it worse for them selves by wanting till the government shuts down before they give in and vote for the debt ceiling and spending authorization.

      1. Joe Manchin has already thrown the $1.5 trillion number around. And that bill is a lot better than the socialist, entitlement inventing $3.5 trillion version. When you’re the minority part in both chambers and you don’t have the White House either, there’s only so much you can do. If McConnell can manage to shave $2.0 trillion off the budget reconciliation bill, he’ll have done better than expected. He shouldn’t have been able to get that.

      2. Why does Manchin have to accept $1 over his $1.5B in Infrastructure spending? The Dems have no margin of error here. Without his vote, the legislation fails. Without Sinema’s vote it fails. Etc. Who is he more worried about offending right now, Chuck Schumer and AOC, etc radicals in the House, or his R+40 constituents? In normal years, Schumer could penalize those two by taking away their committee assignments. But what happens if he does that this time? They switch party, Schumer loses his position, McConnell keeps them where they are, and they have greatly creased their chances of re-election.

    2. I agree with Ken’s analysis, and am hoping the $3.5 trillion bill dies.

    3. They all lose my vote every time they raise the debt ceiling.

      Repubs were wrong to raise the debt ceiling for Trump and they would be more wrong to raise it now. Dems are wrong to want to raise it now when the FedGov is already 28 trillion in debt. The debt ceiling is supposed to be a ceiling. If there’s no political will to raise taxes, cut spending.

      1. Raising the ceiling to allow the treasury to not destroy our credit makes sense. It’s the spending that makes raising the debt ceiling that should be opposed. And the Republicans deserve a tremendous amount of credit for opposing the Democrats on spending–no only in the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill the Democrats are pushing now but also in the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief bill, which was really an unnecessary bail out of states like California, Illinois, and New York.

        Not a single Republican will vote for the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, and not a single Republican voted for the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief bill back in March. I’m all for giving the Republicans the blame when they deserve it, but if the Republicans universally, 100%, opposed a combined $5.4 trillion in new spending, they deserve credit for that. IF IF IF the Republicans eventually raise the debt ceiling to save the economy from out of control interest rates, it won’t be because of spending they approved. It’ll be because of the $5.4 trillion in unnecessary spending the Democrats inflicted on us–over the objections of 100% of the Republicans.

        1. “Not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted for the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package now awaiting President Biden’s signature”

          —-The Hill, March 10, 2021

          https://thehill.com/homenews/house/542581-no-republicans-back-19t-covid-19-relief-bill

        2. Republicans have been remarkably consistent in their policy of killing as many Americans as possible with COVID, that’s for sure.

          1. Last I checked Cuomo has the highest kill count when it comes to C19.

            1. Shitstain and the truth are not really on speaking terms.

            2. When did you last check?

              1. About a minute ago, asshole. When did you last make any contact with reality, steaming pile of lefty shit?

  7. The idea of forcing a change in the government spending habits is a farce. It has been tried for the last 50 years and has yet to succeed. Cutting spending requires dialogue and no one wants to do that work. It is all “here is my position, take it or leave it”. Well if you operate from all or nothing position you usually get nothing.

    1. The painful part is that they don’t even need to cut spending, just limit the growth rate. Bill Clinton’s budget was under 2.0 trillion dollars. Adjusted for inflation that would be 3.5 trillion now, instead of 6 trillion + 2 trillion to rescue America +1.2 trillion to rebuild America +3.5 trillion to reconcile America.

      1. Yes. Rand Paul even tried doing this- a bill to freeze the budget will fix itself in 15 to 20 years. But that opportunity will soon go away as debt interest becomes a larger and larger proportion of our budget.

    2. No, 50-going-on-13, it requires Ds to lose.

  8. The Republicans have earned the credit (not blame!) if it shuts down. Plus bonus points for every month they manage to keep it that way.

  9. Republicans have been profligate spenders in addition to the Democrats. True. But a government shutdown will be the result of a failure to raise the federal debt ceiling. That is a political decision in the hands of the administration and Congress, both of which are in the hands of the Democrats. However, Democrats don’t want to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally because they know Republicans will use the debt ceiling in conjunction with their $3.5 trillion spending package, a package they’ve made no inkling of an indication they have any interest in compromising with Republicans over, to attack them on the campaign trail next year.

    So, how would Republicans, the party not in power, be responsible for a shutdown resulting from the party in power’s unwillingness to seek compromise or risk the consequences of their policies? It isn’t the responsibility of the party out of power to make life easy for the party in power. While this article touches on all these points, it fails to answer that question in any coherent way.

    1. Republicans have been profligate spenders in addition to the Democrats. True. But a government shutdown will be the result of a failure to raise the federal debt ceiling. That is a political decision in the hands of the administration and Congress, both of which are in the hands of the Democrats. However, Democrats don’t want to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally because they know Republicans will use the debt ceiling in conjunction with their $3.5 trillion spending package, a package they’ve made no inkling of an indication they have any interest in compromising with Republicans over, to attack them on the campaign trail next year.

      The media’s tack on this one is similar to what they wrote when Obama was in office–that not raising the ceiling will result in default on the debt, which would send the economy into a tailspin. They know most people don’t realize that the default only happens if payments on the debt service don’t take place, and after a decade-plus of zero-interest loans, making those payments is hardly an issue.

      What is the issue is that the Fed is essentially stuck in keeping those rates at low levels (in the past, we would have raised them during economic booms). Even going back to pre-2008 interest rates would completely blow up the budget, and we really would be fucked at that point because we’d be forced to issue more debt to cover those debt payments.

      This is ultimately why China is poised to move up to superpower status–because our elites sold out the US to them for 50 years, accelerating it in the last 25, and ultimately putting them in a position to really fuck us over eventually by pushing a currency basket or even the yuan as the global exchange medium over the dollar. If that happens, the US economy, and the US itself, are pretty much dead, and the same elites will fly off to Shanghai or Macao or whatever Pacific Rim haven they have prepped so the fallout doesn’t affect them.

      All of this done in service to the delusion that China would democratize or knuckle under to globalist world government ambitions if they started making shitty tennis shoes and easily breakable tools for the United States. China is a 1.5 billion strong, culturally homogenous, hyper-nationalist ethnostate, and doesn’t give two shits about conforming to Klaus Schwab’s and Bill Gates’ Malthusian fever dreams, much less Thomas Freidman’s or another the other DC/NYC circuit assholes who have fluffed the Chinese micropeens since Clintons started selling them our military tech.

      1. ^Bravo. Fucking perfect, dude.

    2. “Republicans have been profligate spenders in addition to the Democrats…”

      You’d look less like a stupid shit if you learned to count before making a public ass of yourself.

  10. So the nasty republicans are going to shut down the government?

    Funny thing about the last election; the democrats are fully in control. If there is a shutdown, it is fully and solely on them.
    If they really want unity, they could not add any more spending, and get the THAT bill passed in a (non-fetal) heartbeat.

  11. >>If they really want unity

    “they” are united. against us.

  12. This is the perfect “both sides” way for reason to cover for their terrible choice of candidate.

  13. Ah, yet another article blaming social programs for the debt and not also recognizing that tax cuts also caused the problem.

    1. And yet another dumdass post that fails to recognize revenues always go up with tax cuts because the pie gets bigger. But it is not about revenue with you pinko bastards, it is all about ‘fairness.’

    2. Except federal revenues continued to grow, even with the tax cuts and the COVID-adjacent shutdowns:

      FY2015: 3.25 trillion
      FY2016: 3.27 trillion
      FY2017: 3.32 trillion
      FY2018: 3.33 trillion
      FY2019: 3.46 trillion
      FY2020: 3.71 trillion (estimated)
      FY2021: 3.86 trillion (estimated)

      I’m not seeing some giant revenue dip from the Trump tax cuts.

      https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

      1. CE, given inflation and the growth of the economy, 2018 tax revenues shrunk compared to what they would have been without the tax cut. Later analysis also showed that while it was promised that corporations would reinvest their savings, they did nothing of the kind, with the overwhelming amount of it passed out in dividends.

        Republicans pull this tax cut gag every chance they get, but it never produces. Honest conservative economists ackowledge that at best 1/3 of tax cuts are regained through accelerated economic activity.

        1. Stuff it up your ass, JF.

        2. Is that common core math?

          1. “Jan 4, 2020 — The bottom line: It seems clear the tax cuts contributed to economic growth—but not enough to pay for themselves, as many backers promised.”

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/did-the-u-s-tax-overhaul-do-what-it-promised-11578114001

            1. In 1976, Bartlett began working for U.S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas). In 1987, Bartlett became a senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House Office of Policy Development, then headed by Gary Bauer. He left in 1988 to become the deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department, where he served until the end of the George H. W. Bush administration.

              “Forty years ago, while working for New York Rep. Jack Kemp, I helped originate the Republican obsession with slashing taxes that came to be called “supply-side economics.” While I believe this theory played a useful role in economic theory and policy in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it has long outlived its usefulness and is now nothing but dogma completely divorced from reality.

              It will be hard for many to believe, but once upon a time, Republicans genuinely cared about the budget deficit. From Dwight Eisenhower to George H.W. Bush, many of them were actually willing to raise taxes and oppose tax cuts to reduce it. And that includes Ronald Reagan, who cut taxes in 1981 but then supported 11 tax increases to offset a ballooning deficit.

              The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top personal income tax rate to just 28% from 50%, and the corporate tax rate to 34% from 46%. Yet there was no increase in the rate of economic growth in subsequent years and by 1990 the economy was in a deep recession.

              Strenuous efforts by economists to find a growth effect from the 1986 act have failed to find any.There were accounting effects as income was shuffled around to take advantage of tax changes, but no rise in investment or any significant effect on labor supply. “The aggregate values of labor supply and saving apparently responded very little,” economists Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod concluded in an authoritative study.

              The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s.

              1. There is a lot here, and while I think you have some valid points, you’re also cherry picking. Look at where the acceleration in deficit spending occurred since 1980. Reagan, Bush, Bush 2, Trump. Deficits provide artificial stimulus to the economy at the cost of future growth. Right now we need reasonable men and women to sit down and give government a haircut because we are spending too much and not wisely enough. And those same men and women need to look at making taxation more equitable (eliminate Stieglitz’s “rents). Then work to figure out how to position American to prosper in the next 20 years. Then rinse and repeat!

                1. From Ohio, there are times for tax cuts, usually in a downturn when the pump needs priming and to hell with the cost which you hope to make up later during a period of growth. Cutting taxes when the economy was growing – as we did in 2017 – makes no sense. That’s when you try to pay down the debt, not incur more.

                  1. Joe, there are times to fuck off and die.

                2. You mean ONeill, Wright, and Pelosi

                  dipshit

              2. I was alive during Carters failure, I saw first hand that there was a difference between gas lines verses thriving economy. And now your more modern example is that there is less revenue than before when we are now paying people to stay home and pay no taxes. I got 3 shells , if you can figure out where the ball is, you win a prize.

                1. And by the way “supply side economics has existed for centuries. It started with a class of merchants and bankers of which the noble class termed bourgeoisie.

            2. Sevo, he has his points. You really only have an insult in return. I favor social programs and I started working at 14 and stopped at 61, having paid enormous amounts into the government, and personally received virtually nothing. It was the price of living in a country that allowed me to get wealthy. Which you might try, it has better long term benefits than insulting somebody you don’t agree with. You’ll laugh all the way to the bank!

              1. So we have a lefty from Ohio suggesting that spending our selves to bankruptcy is just fine!
                Fuck off and die.

            3. Lol. We pay for government, not for tax cuts. You’re starting on the wrong side of possession, joe.

              Typical.

        3. Huh? Inflation wouldn’t have happened without the tax cut?

          How retarded are you, joe?

      2. The problem is WHO pays for the federal tax revenue. The balance has been shifting from corporations and wealthy individuals to the middle class. Hey, I’m a beneficiary based on net worth – but I’ll be the first to tell you, the board is tilted in my direction. But I’m not complaining, however I know the truth.

        1. Fuck off and die, asshole.

    3. Yes, asshole, social programs are the driver of spending and debt and should be cuty drastically.
      Parasitic shits like you should find a job.

      1. Sevo, he has his points. You really only have an insult in return. I favor social programs and I started working at 14 and stopped at 61, having paid enormous amounts into the government, and personally received virtually nothing. It was the price of living in a country that allowed me to get wealthy. Which you might try, it has better long term benefits than insulting somebody you don’t agree with. You’ll laugh all the way to the bank!

        1. “Sevo, he has his points. You really only have an insult in return…”
          \
          No, he (or she) doesn’t; she is a typical pile of lefty shit. Those who spout such are worth of insults an nothing else.
          The fact that you got yours, jack just makes you one more lefty shit.

    4. You seem confused, so I developed an experiment to help you understand. First stick your hear in a five gallon bucket of leaches, and then when they start to feed, tax you body for a percentage of blood. See how that works out………..

      Please.

  14. During the last government ‘shutdown’ they simply furloughed all of the ‘non-essential’ federal employees. (They came back some weeks later – with back pay.)

    If a federal employee is non-essential enough to not be needed during a shutdown, make the shutdown permanent. These folks have no problem trying to shut the rest of us down, as evidenced by the past 19 months or so.

    1. And closed down the outdoor parks and monuments, even though they take no staff to remain open.

      1. CE – blame the law!!! The government is split between essential and non-essential workers. If there is a shutdown, the non-essential workers get laid off. Sorry if you don’t think national parks should be included – talk to your congressman.

  15. Sometimes we want to post a beautiful image on Facebook, Instagram, or another social network but do not know precisely what. We joined the useful to the pleasant and selected beautiful images with phrases of various kinds for you to share on your networks. Check it out!
    https://bit.ly/3ApHRkY

  16. The Libertarian in me is happy when an over reaching govt. shuts down. Since we don’t even get a reach around in the first place.

  17. Blame both? I mean, Republicans have no issue spending money when they’re the majority power. But now they’re just looking to stick a thumb in Biden’s eye. They have no moral objections to the debt ceiling- they have objections to anyone holding power except them.

    But when it comes to Dems spending money- oh, nowwww it’s a big deal. Unamerican POSs all need voted out.

    1. We re talking about 3.5 trillion here, but it will probably be more. I didn’t agree with much of the republican spending. the amounts of money government spends just keep growing, next it will be 10 trillion, and then 100 trillion. We the people are being treated like the newest porno whore, let’s just see how big of a schlong we can stick in there.

      1. There will be no 3.5 trillion dollar deal. A more likely bill will be in the 1.0 trillion dollar range. But look to republicans to spend money on defense, and we spend three times China, and ten times Russia.

        1. At least defense of this nation and it’s people is an actual constitutional function of government.

    2. “Blame both? I mean, Republicans have no issue spending money when they’re the majority power…”

      Learn to count, shitfordinner.

  18. Government shutdowns are theater.

  19. Blame Both Parties if the Federal Government Shuts Down in December

    Ah, yes, the fake-libertarian statists at Reason actually think it’s a bad thing when the federal government shuts down; it doesn’t even occur to them that this is an absurd position for a nominally libertarian publication to take.

    As to who is to “blame” for the shutdown, that’s square on the Democrats: they have been trying to push through authoritarian, illiberal, radical spending and policy packages without Republican consent and are now wondering why Republicans are unwilling to sign a blank check for it.

    1. Yeah. THat would be true if the government actually shut down. But that’s not what happens. It doesn’t save any money and it doesn’t stop any intrusions into our lives.

    2. To NOYB2, your thinking is broken. You’re trying to “change the world”. Your job is to see the world as it actually is, and plan your actions to prosper in that world. Your comment will influence no change in society, heck, it probably just gets you all wound up. See the world as it is and position yourself to prosper in reality.

      1. From Ohio, your a fucking piece of lefty shit. Fuck off and die.

      2. No, his thinking is fine. “Change the world” is a noble, if futile endeavor when “the world” is driving off a cliff.

        And how do you know he is not in a position to “prosper in reality”? I’m doing fine, and you’re clearly fluffing yourself over your net worth, but who’s to say that economic “reality” will look remotely the same in a “great reset” brought on by government bloat?

        Invest accordingly. And oppose government bloat. NOYB2 gets it. You don’t.

  20. So the government shuts down. Where’s the bad news? And if a default is what it takes to get spending under control, so be it. Nothing else has worked.

    11/10 Congress still votes a raise for themselves.

    1. The minute the government shut down inconveniences you in any minuscule way, you are guaranteed to whine about it and blame everyone but the people who did it.

      1. I hope they don’t cut your methadone!

        1. I think shitstain’s on some sort of a booze subsidy.

      2. The minute the government shut down inconveniences you in any minuscule way, you are guaranteed to whine about it and blame everyone but the people who did it.

        Pre-emptive whining means you’re right.

      3. Damn right! I’ll whine about my congresspersons water feature, and the crew of 12 to maintain it in her 80 person taxpayer funded prime office space while she jets around the world bitching about climate change instead of fixing the potholes.

        Is that not ok, tony?

  21. So the official libertarian position is to use a nonsensical legislative gimmick to insert extortion into the normal legislative process, with the stability of the global economy and the future credibility of the United States on the line. I guess big government is in the eye of the beholder.

    You people care about what our childrens is learning, right? So why don’t you object to the use of the artificial “debt ceiling” as a content-free bit of messaging meant to make voters stupid? I bet most of the commenters here, geniuses though they may be, don’t even understand what the debt ceiling is.

    1. Shitstain’s drunk again. Or still.

      1. People say they never felt better than when they stopped drinking. I didn’t believe it then, but I believe it now.

        The problem with alcohol and other drugs is that they are insidious poisons: for the problems it causes you in the morning, it cures itself. It’s simply a matter of getting out of the cycle. Bonus points for accurately calculating your own susceptibility to addiction and, perhaps, oral fixation.

        I still chew nicotine gum constantly and have a zero-calorie tangy beverage at my side. An adult approximation of a security blanket, the one I had as a child, unsurprisingly, still in my childhood closet, chewed to scraps.

        It’s quite something to realize that the reason you drink is exactly the same reason you organize bookshelves, and can’t get to sleep until you know they are in order.

        1. Stupidity is the problem with lefty assholes like shitstain. Just that, nothing more is required.
          They all seem to think someone here cares about them. No one does.
          Fuck off and die, shitstain.

      2. And he commented twice, despite being muted on account of being an alcoholic failure with nothing worthwhile to say… Must be lonely.

  22. I’ve got a novel idea, how about we lower government spending and drop the debt ceiling on the wicked witch of the west coast. I tried the bucket of mop water on Nancy, but it just washed off her make up, and you don’t want to see that.

    1. Too late, we all saw the salon show.

  23. I propose that the federal budget be capped at the pervious year’s tax revenues. If there’s an emergency, well then pick your priorities carefully.

    1. This is an idea! Or as Warren Buffet says, if the deficit goes over a threshold, then nobody in congress gets paid. Problem solved!

      1. What if all laws and taxes effected congress doubly. I pay 30% they pay 60%, that would keep them in check.

      2. This would be the same fucking hypocrite Warren Buffet who whined for years that his taxes are too low, did not bother to send a bigger check, capped his “income” at $100K/year, and spent millions of dollars in legal fees trying to get his use of his fractional-jet-charter company declared other than income?
        Fuck you with a running, rusty chainsaw, asshole.

  24. The writer goes through contortions avoiding mentioning the budget busting GOP tax cuts, the last one being in 2017, and which is estimated to cost us $1 trillion in tax revenues in 10 years.

    1. Fuck you – cut spending and cut taxes.

      1. By any means necessary, or do you wish to consult democratic will on the matter?

        1. Fuck you. Cut spending and cut taxes.

          1. Asked and answered.

            You’re what the authoritarians call “useful cannon fodder.”

            1. You’re what intelligent people call “steaming pile of lying lefty shit”
              Fuck off and die, shitstain.

    2. Good point! Even if you have a few morons dogging you in the comments!

      1. You’re full of shit.

    3. Are your numbers based on the growth that has taken place since the tax cuts? If they are then you are making a chicken or egg argument. It’s like saying we would have all this revenue from all this growth if we never lowered taxes while ignoring that the growth came from lowering taxes. Your argument is paradoxical.

    4. Cut spending, cut taxes.

    5. “……estimated to cost us…..”

      Haha. Wow. Didn’t cost me anything. In fact I took home more.

      It’s my money, asshole, not “ours”.

  25. You might want to take a course in false equivalency. If the government closes down in December, think of it as 99.999% republican and 0.001% democratic. Who is refusing to go along? Isn’t the mantra that whenever the democrats what to raise the debt ceiling – make a fuss, but when republicans do – be strangely silent. Since 1980 (let’s drop Covid for this discussion) under whose administrations have deficits increased, and under whose have deficits been reduced. Republicans have been responsible for ALL of the increase in deficit spending. So don’t be a hypocrit and gaslight Reason readers!

    1. Can you still taste Joe’s last pudding-pop after you finish blowing him?

    2. The last President to reduce the actual debt, and not have a bs accounting trick as deficit reduction like under Clinton, was Eisenhower.

    3. New steaming pile of lefty shit assumes we have not seen the lies he presents earlier!
      Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit! We HAVE seen the same damn lies from other steaming piles of lefty shit.

  26. Republicans propose slowing down increase in future rate of spending, are instantly accused of killing grandmas and starving children.

    “Yes, blame both parties, they’re equally to blame”.

  27. Never, ever forget that on the one or two rare occasions in recent history when the republican party actually attempted a sort-of real fight over the budget deficit leading to a “government shutdown”, the fake, fraudulent, fugazi libertarians of Reason have always responded each time by saying “Just shut the hell up and approve the democratic party’s budget already, you republicans.”

    The Welchie Boy fugazis have no real credibility on this issue.

  28. While I am always reticent to make analogies between governmental and personal budget procedures (usually, while each uses similar terms, they are conceptually entirely different), in this particular case, it works well to illustrate the situation regarding the debt ceiling vote to use the following concept. It would be as though a small business partnership (or family) made a rule that, in order to write a check to cover loan payments when those payments cover a level of debt above some agreed level, a majority of the owners (or family) would have to agree. Any rational group of owners would immediately notice the problem with such a procedure; a vote to take on debt must be prior to actually taking on the loan. Having already taken on the loan, the agreement or non-agreement of the debtor to make payments on it is a bit late. Actually making a decision against such a payment would mean the effective end of the ability to borrow again.

  29. THEY SHOULD BE MADE to surrender ALL the ill-gotten gains while in office and their PERKS be taken away. THEN SWORN to THEIR OATH To office again AND BE THROWN OUT! THEN USE the SEIZED monies for the NATIONAL DEBT they created.

  30. All govt agencies and entitlement programs created after 1960 should be shut down. 30% of the DOD budget should be taken away(just cut the army in half..standing armies are a threat to liberty and obviously the worst deep state offenders seem to be army officers). No more borrowing needed…sell off federal land to raise money to prepay the outstanding treasuries and tie the dollar to gold. Problem cured. that and deport any keynsian economists to Russia or Eastern Europe…

  31. Fuck Biden, Fuck Reason, Fuck Bithsideism, Fuck VDR

  32. As less than 10% of the federal government will actually shut down, who cares?

    1. It will be the 10% most likely to piss people off, and, if it is anything like the last shut down directed by that lying piece of shit Obo, the actual ‘shut down’ will cost more in keeping guards to make sure the shut down parks are kept empty.
      Fucking Ds will stop at nothing to make asses of themselves and make turd, shitstain, Queen Asshole, sarc and others fully armed with lies.

  33. The Congressional Dems don’t need a single GOP vote to raise the debt ceiling. They have majority control of both houses of Congress and the White House.

    The problem is not all of the Dem representatives and senators are on board with raising the debt ceiling if it leads to $5T in additional spending.

    So blow your “both sides” rhetoric out your butt.

  34. Blame Both Parties if the Federal Government Shuts Down in December

    Why does this headline paint a shutdown like it’s a bad thing?

    “Thank Both Parties if the Federal Government Shuts Down in December” – FTFY.

  35. Afghan War is over and Democrats are paying for everything by punishing success. Why raise the debt ceiling?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.