Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Debt Ceiling

Debt Ceiling Deal Curtails GOP-Backed Budget Cuts, Spending Caps

The deal will freeze non-military discretionary spending this year and allow a 1 percent increase in 2024.

Eric Boehm | 5.28.2023 2:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
MEGA985292_014 | Yuri Gripas - Pool via CNP / MEG / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom
(Yuri Gripas - Pool via CNP / MEG / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom)

After a monthslong standoff, President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) announced a deal to raise the federal government's debt limit and avert the first default in U.S. history.

The deal will suspend the debt limit through January 2025—in other words, until after the winners of the next presidential and congressional elections are sworn-in—and caps non-military discretionary spending for each of the next two years. According to multiple media reports, the caps will hold steady that part of the federal budget at 2023 levels next year and will allow for a 1 percent increase in 2025. After that, the caps will be removed.

The agreement also reportedly includes some Republican demands, like increased work requirements for food stamp recipients, clawing back some unspent COVID emergency funds, and rescinding some of the $80 billion in new funding given to the IRS in last year's budget resolution. The specifics will become more clear later on Sunday, when the text of the bill is scheduled to be released.

For now, as expected, both sides are claiming victory. "GOP leaders [are] claiming they got big cuts to domestic programs," tweeted Washington Post economics reporter Jeff Stein on Sunday morning. Meanwhile, Democrats are "claiming it's essentially a funding freeze (conservatives agree)," he added.

Between those diverging views of the deal, it would appear that the Democrats and conservative Republicans are closer to telling the truth. Indeed, the House GOP effort to reduce federal spending as part of the debt ceiling deal seems to have ended up on the cutting room floor.

Recall that, last month, McCarthy successfully stewarded a bill—The Limit, Save, Grow Act—through the House last month that would have actually cut federal spending and raised the debt ceiling. That package would reset the federal budget baseline to where it was last year—that is, before the December passage of the $1.7 trillion omnibus bill that jacked up spending across the board—would limit future budget growth to one percent annually for the next decade, and would slow the accumulation of future debt.

In other words, it included a more sizable spending cut and a longer period of future spending restraint than the deal struck this weekend.

Of course, it was always unlikely that Republicans could get that bill through the Senate and get Biden to sign it. Even so, the gap between those goals and the newly announced debt ceiling deal is remarkable—and not in a way that looks particularly impressive for McCarthy.

"The big GOP win here is that they forced Biden to agree to flat nominal discretionary spending for one year and then a one percent nominal increase the year after that, which is a significant cut in inflation-adjusted, per capita, or GDP terms," notes liberal pundit Matt Yglesias on his Slow Boring substack. "But that's something Republicans could (and would) have gotten through the normal appropriations process anyway."

Yglesias' post is aimed at showing Democrats and liberals that Biden made a good deal, but his point also highlights how Republicans fell short here. Since the House controls much of the budget-making process, McCarthy could have effectively imposed a spending freeze or 1 percent discretionary spending growth over the next two years simply by passing budgets that did exactly that. If Biden (or the Senate) refused to go along, the House could respond by passing continuing resolutions that hold spending to current levels. "The point of debt ceiling hostage-taking was supposed to be to win spending concessions that can't be won through the normal appropriations process," Yglesias writes.

He's exactly right. But McCarthy took Social Security and Medicare (the real drivers of unsustainable future debt) off the table early on during negotiations. Now, by abandoning the attempt to cut spending back to last year's levels, the deal effectively cements the new, higher federal baseline established by December's omnibus bill. That's a obvious victory for Biden and the Democrats.

And what did McCarthy get in return? Some minor changes to work requirements for food stamp recipients, which will allow Republicans to posture about being tough on welfare but which won't meaningfully reduce future deficits. Trimming some of the new IRS funding and rescinding unspent COVID funds are fiscally responsible policies, for sure, but they are also things that could have been accomplished through other means.

Everything the Republicans won in this negotiation is "stuff they could have just as easily gotten in a vanilla budget fight or Farm Bill reauthorization," concludes Semafor editor Jordan Weissmann.

McCarthy may now have a hard time selling this deal to his own members. Rep. Ralph Norman (R–S.C.) called the deal "insanity" in a Saturday night tweet. "A $4 [trillion] debt ceiling increase with virtually no cuts is not what we agreed to," Norman wrote on Twitter. "Not gonna vote to bankrupt our country. The American people deserve better."

Let's be clear: the most important part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid defaulting on the national debt is…avoiding defaulting on the national debt. This agreement checks that essential box.

But the debate over the debt ceiling has long been a proxy for a broader debate over the trajectory of federal spending—and it is one of the few effective mechanisms for putting real restraints on future spending. If the goal was merely to raise the debt ceiling without seriously reducing future federal spending, McCarthy could have ended this showdown months ago.

Instead, he pushed to the brink, risked an economically disastrous default, and seemingly came away with little to show for it.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Marc Andreessen on A.I., Bitcoin, and Billionaires

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

Debt CeilingDeficitsGovernment SpendingDefense SpendingCongressWhite HouseBiden AdministrationKevin McCarthyEntitlements
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (158)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   2 years ago

    Curtails GOP-Backed Budget Cuts

    Wait, what? I thought bowf sidez were "equally bad" on spending!

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      They caved. So just as bad as the dems who wanted to increase spending. Or something.

    2. sarcasmic   2 years ago

      I'd like to see Republicans push for spending cuts when they are actually in power with the same verve as when they're not in power.

      1. JesseAz   2 years ago

        But you'd never criticize a Democrat for pushing for increases. Always so weird.

        1. Me, Myself and I   2 years ago

          Democrats being bad for liberty is basically a given at this point. There's no point in criticising their policies for being big government because Democrats are the big government party. However, Republicans claim to be the party of small government, so it's important to hold them accountable when they fail to live up to their ideals.

          Like how you will be held accountable if you don't take this amazing job opportunity which pays $1803 per hour online working from home!
          Click here
          |
          |
          V
          http://accountablejobs.scamrichquick.com

      2. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        I guess the Trump administration cuts across the board (most notably the EPA) just doesn't count?

        1. JesseAz   2 years ago

          No. His order to cut 10% from every federal agency only to have then openly deny his order is his fault.

          1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

            Yes, he should have been more authoritarian.

            /sarc

          2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

            And if Trump had fought harder against spending, especially during COVID, he would have had his vetoes overridden and all the s usual suspects would have vilified him for trying. Of course, now we have Sarc and Shreek making comments below revising history.

            This is all 100% the fault of the democrats, and the usual RINO’s.

        2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

          I guess the Trump administration cuts across the board (most notably the EPA) just doesn’t count?

          Delusional.

          You really are a moron.

          1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

            How was he wrong, Shrike?

          2. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

            Notice how shreek can't refute the comment and just devolves into nonsensical off-topic name-calling? It's funny because that's exactly what sarcasmic accuses everyone who addresses his arguments and tears them to shreds before his eyes of doing, and yet he has a flaming homosexual man-crush on shreek the pedophile whose original Sarah Palin's Buttplug account was banned from Reason.com for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography.

            1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

              Fuck off, Tulpa.

              Anyone who thinks any administration cut spending "across the board" is a total moron or Trump Cultist.

              In this case both apply.

              1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                Humorously your own numbers below show EXACTLY that.. That Trump and a full Republican congress did CUT the spending.

                1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

                  Liar.

                  Spending increased every year.

                  The only decrease was Biden's first full year:

                  2021 5,900.8 30.1
                  2022 5,124.8 25.1

                  And then only because COVID spending fell.

                  1. Sevo   2 years ago

                    Fuck off turd.
                    turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
                    If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
                    turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

                  2. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

                    Holy crap your such a lying POS hack.
                    You didn't even show the numbers for the Republican trifecta (on purpose) just to spread your lies.

                    Democrats took the House in 2019; blew up the budget with the Cares Act and held it there and spend like drunk sailors for the next 4-years. And just like the BS lies you try to spread about the Obama administration; You’ll pretend Democrats reduced spending NOW even though all over the news it’s the Republican house cutting spending.

                    UR F’En retarded.

                    2017 3,756.3 20.7 2018 3,789.9 20.2 ——- Democrats take the House 2019 4,029.9 21.0 2020 5,828.5 31.1 2021 5,900.8 30.1 2022 5,124.8 25.1

      3. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

        Fuck off you whining gutless pussy. Apologize or throw down.

        1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD’s Leftist Kill Count: 0   2 years ago

          No one is going to travel to shithole Spokane. Even if they get the satisfaction of smashing your cowardly face in. That’s your fault for living in the asshole of Washington state.

          Happy Memorial Day coward.

          1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

            Is that you Sarc? Or is this Shreek? You’re both pussies. And Sarc is the one who threatened to come kick my ass and then ran and hid for months. I didn’t tell him to come here. So either way, fuck off. You’re both worthless cowards.

    3. Mockamodo   2 years ago

      The bigger issue is that this was planned and signed off on by the same people who then feigned shock and surprise and cried emergency. The same people now bragging that they prevented default signed off on the spending bills that they knew would cause this to happen, this was a staged event, planned out in detail. It was truly bi-partisan, they worked together to ensure this would happen. A good government would have prevented this from happening at the budget stage, not planned it out so it would happen and allow them to use the impending default crisis to create more debt. As Rahm Emanuel said, never let a good crisis go to waste, and if you don't have a good crisis just create one.

      1. MachineGunBodine   2 years ago

        Failure Theater Episode 11,952.

  2. JesseAz   2 years ago

    Pretty tepid deal. Mccarthy caved on a lot of topics. Better than what democrats wanted though. Small steps are better than no steps. Sucks they used 2022 as the baseline.

    1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

      The good news is that he will not be able to sell this "deal" to enough Republicans to pass it in the House. He was negotiating with the wrong people (the President's staff") and caved in on too many key issues. If only they had passed the original budget when they had control of the House and the Senate and the White House America would be better off fiscally. It supports the notion that the GOP doesn't actually WANT to cut spending or stop adding trillions to the national debt. I have made no secret of the fact that I think defaulting on the national debt service now is the least bad of a range of terrible outcomes.

      1. JesseAz   2 years ago (edited)

        It sounds like the “moderate” dems in red areas are signed up. Guess is around 50 or so will sign. More than what GOP has for members who will say no.

        The problem is the GOP has about a quarter neocon or controlled opposition members. They have never had 60 votes in the senate. So due to those members being there there isn't actual GOP control. The dems vote in lock step at much higher rates.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

          The dems vote in lock step at much higher rates.

          No they don't.

          About 20 "true progressives" will defect because of the work requirements in SNAP. Like that idiot Jayapal from WA state.

          This is just like 2011 when Obama and Boehner struck a deal and pissed off their fringe idiots.

          1. Sevo   2 years ago

            turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
            turd lies. Turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.

          2. damikesc   2 years ago

            You mean the progs will behave in a manner they never have before?

            Will buy it when I see it.

            Few groups drop into lockstep more easily than the progressive caucus.

  3. JesseAz   2 years ago

    Let's be clear: the most important part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid defaulting on the national debt is…avoiding defaulting on the national debt. This agreement checks that essential box.

    It is intentional at this point. 10 years ago Reason would not have ignorantly repeated this talking point. Can tell they have marching orders.

    1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago (edited)

      It is also intentional on the part of the Congress. Almost no current politician inside the Beltway actually wants to limit deficit spending. Almost all of them want to increase pork-barrel deficit spending … they just don’t agree on which projects to throw money away on in order to pad their political careers. The current and recurrent “default” crisis is actually a manufactured talking point for the purpose of getting public opinion on the side of your Red Team or your Blue Team … and NOTHING ELSE! As usual, they are playing a game of brinksmanship that always ends with the Republicans caving in. They don’t want The People to realize that raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on regular federal debt interest payments have nothing whatever to do with each other. If the general public ever found out that they didn’t have to raise the debt ceiling EVER to pay the interest on the federal debt every year, they might no longer be able to use fear to maintain their cushy positions in government careers.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   2 years ago

        Yeah it's all theater. At Trump's CNN town hall he was asked about Congress "defaulting" on the federal debt. He said they might as well. They're going to have to someday. I literally cheered and put a fist in the air.

    2. Social Justice is neither   2 years ago (edited)

      Yeah, a deal that allowed unlimited spending with no restrictions would tick off that box and satisfy Boehm. How exactly is he different from a Democrat?

  4. sarcasmic   2 years ago

    Was that picture taken with a shoe-cam?

    1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

      Nope, it was taken from the perspective of the groveling worms who voted for these political POS's - the ones with godlike powers over the rest of us who don't have to justify their ridiculous positions to the likes of us ...

      1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

        Gods among men.

  5. sarcasmic   2 years ago

    "Not gonna vote to bankrupt our country. The American people deserve better."

    Too late for that bub. A million is a thousand thousands and a trillion is a million millions.

    That means a trillion is a thousand thousand thousand thousands.

    And the federal debt is how many of those?

    Yeah, it's never going to be paid off.

    1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

      The goal here is not to "pay off the national debt!" The goal here, according to the "Reason" pundits, is to avoid "default." The politician you're quoting, together with almost all the other Congress critters, has undoubtedly voted repeatedly to bankrupt our country whether he admits it or not or whether the truth would support his narrative for this soundbite at this political juncture or not. It seems obvious to me that there is plenty of money to pay the interest on the national debt if they did that every year BEFORE they spent money on anything else. There would be plenty of money to keep Social Security solvent if they chose to fund that program over everything else after the national debt; and there would be plenty of money to fund an unbeatable national defense if they prioritized that over their little, worthless, failed social welfare programs and the Global War on Everything People Don't Like. But what career politician is ever going to vote for that?

      1. Roberta   2 years ago

        But Social Security and Medicare has its own budget. The only way it can pay in full now is by borrowing from the rest of the fisc. So it can't be paid first — unless by "first" you mean after more Treasuries are recorded.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

          Yes. SS and Medicare have their own separate accounts and funding sources.

          And they automatically cut when funding is deficient. Congress not needed.

          1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

            SS and Medicare have their own separate accounts and funding sources.

            Imagine being such a normie that you believe this crap.

            1. Sevo   2 years ago

              Well, turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
              turd lies. Turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.

        2. JesseAz   2 years ago

          While SS still has a "surplus", it is technically a debt so would be paid. Medicaid is not so it would have cuts for payments.

          One of the GOP gets was minor work requirements for welfare and medicaid though.

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

            Obama tried to cut Medicare and the GOP went ballistic.

            They called his discontinuation of unnecessary medical procedures "DEATH PANELS" and bitched like teen girls.

            Fact is that something like 40% of Medcare expenses go to terminally ill patients.

            And the GOP is always groaning about GAWD'S WILL. Then they want death-delaying expensive procedures for the near-dead.

            1. Sevo   2 years ago

              turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
              If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
              turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

            2. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

              No, Obama tried to triple count Medicare cuts to "pay for" his massive expansion of Medicaid and the exchange subsidies in order to pretend that his multi-trillion dollar new entitlement program was budget neutral, but you knew that.

  6. MWAocdoc   2 years ago (edited)

    It’s impossible for me to tell whether Eric Boehm is even remotely libertarian from this article. It’s not clear to me why the Reason editors would publish an article that seems to conclude that avoiding default on the national debt is the only consideration here or that raising the debt ceiling – again! – is the only way to free up enough Federal money to make payments on the national debt. Obviously if the government spends more on discretionary programs than it receives in revenues it would have to borrow more money. There is no law that I’m aware of that requires the government to borrow money, especially in violation of the Constitutional requirement requiring them to pay the debts of the government! There is no Constitutional requirement that I’m aware of that forces the government to spend money it doesn’t have just because Congress authorized the spending. The simple solution is painfully obvious: spend less on other things this year (and every year) and service the federal debt as the first priority. No opportunistic (but that’s redundant) politician in her right mind would ever admit this as a possibility, though; only honorable statesmen who don’t keep at least one eye on their political careers constantly could even think of this as an alternative!

    1. Mike Laursen   2 years ago

      It’s not clear to me why the Reason editors would publish an article that seems to conclude that avoiding default on the national debt is the only consideration here...

      First of all, it's a blog post, not a magazine article. It's not clear that Reason exerts editorial control over staffers deciding to post on the blog whenever they feel like it.

      Second, Boehm said: "Let's be clear: the most important part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid defaulting on the national debt is…avoiding defaulting on the national debt. This agreement checks that essential box. But ..." Followed by a whole paragraph talking about how avoiding default isn't the only consideration.

      1. JesseAz   2 years ago

        Default on the debt was never guaranteed since debt payments are about 10% if spending you ignorant moron.

      2. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

        First of all, it’s a blog post, not a magazine article.

        “Reason isn’t worth the paper it isn’t printed on.”

        /mike

      3. sarcasmic   2 years ago

        The people in the comments aren’t happy unless they find something in an article that proves the author isn’t a libertarian, and if that fails something the author didn’t say that proves they aren’t a libertarian.

        1. DesigNate   2 years ago

          Yep, when people like MWAocdoc, who generally don’t bag on Reason or the writing calls them out, it because he’s not happy if he can’t pick on poor wittle reason.

        2. JesseAz   2 years ago

          How do you know what the comments say since you claim to mute everyone sarc? Love how you always whine like a bitch about others misinterpreting your words, even citing them, then you freely make up things about comments you claim not to see.

          Boehm has made the default narrative lie multiple times retard. You claim to be versed in economics but you are seemingly too stupid to know the basics of government spending.

        3. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

          It's amazing how quickly you'll turn on your butt buddies the moment they don't join you in licking Nick Gillespie's boomer taint 16 hours a day. MWAocdoc is a Salon-level leftist who you spend most of your time agreeing with and defending from the "Mean Girls" until he has a criticism of your clergymen. It's hard to imagine anything more pathetic than being a simp for the staff of this magazine, until you realize you tried to initiate a sexual encounter in the bathroom of a boomer rock concert rather than live up to your threats when you challenged somebody to a fist fight.

      4. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

        First of all, it’s a blog post, not a magazine article.

        Having taken up a 2nd career as a professional software engineer after your previous careers on this and your various other sockpuppet handles as a physician, an attorney, and a commercial and residential real estate developer, I'm surprised you didn't know that blog posts are so frequently referred to as "articles" that the HTML5 standard actually includes a fucking tag called "articles" that exists purely for differentiating blog content from the rest of a website for SEO purposes, Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq.

        It’s not clear that Reason exerts editorial control over staffers deciding to post on the blog whenever they feel like it.

        It is to anyone who isn't clinically retarded and understands how website publishing works.

        1. Mike Laursen   2 years ago (edited)

          Work on your reading comprehension. I didn’t say it is not an article; I said it is not a “magazine article”. The modifier, magazine, was intentional becuase, of course the blog post could be considered to be an article.

          It is to anyone who isn’t clinically retarded and understands how website publishing works.

          Really? So you know that Eric Boehm was assigned by a Reason editor to write this blog post rather than deciding on his own to write it and post it? You know that it was reviewed and approved by a Reason editor before being posted? You know these things?

        2. Mike Laursen   2 years ago

          Of all those careers you listed, I have never been a real estate devloper, attorney nor a physician. Not sure where you are getting the idea that I ever said otherwise.

          I am a software engineer, and have been for about 35 years now.

          1. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

            I’ve seen you claim to be a general contractor.

  7. diver64   2 years ago

    There never was going to be a default. The US brought in over $350 Billion last month and interest on the debt is $65 Billion give or take. The revenue is more than enough to pay the interest. The Dems real problem was that they would have to cut all that extra spending like billions to Ukraine, Hundreds of millions to the WHO, hundreds of billion for the solar and wind energy nonsense. McCarthy could have gotten a much better deal. I think people are wise to the nonsense after Obama put up baracades so you couldn't visit the WW2 Memorials in DC or park at Mt. Rushmore in that farcical foolishness.

    1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

      I wish it were true that people were wise. But if some people got wise to the recurring "default" shell game, it's clearly not enough to convince the career politicians to stop the charade.

  8. TJJ2000   2 years ago

    Inside the mind of every criminal Demorats warped mind, "Those darn Repulicans holding-up [OUR] 'armed-theft' robbery spree!! What about 'poor' me?? What about my 'other earnings' spending spree??? OMG! I might have to work for what I want!! This is BS!"

    1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

      ... and inside the mind of every criminal Republican's warped cranium, "I wonder how much longer our constituents will continue to believe that we are actually trying to prevent increases in deficit spending. Have they started to catch on this umpteenth time we've tried the same trick of pretending to hold the line on spending before caving in?" But by all means if you want to blame the Democrats for continuing to play charades that the GOP always ends up losing, be my guest!

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        And what party does the GOP cave/lose too umpteenth times? That's quite a trick your playing blaming the losers without any acknowledgement of what/who they are loosing too.

        1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

          Why, the “winners” of course.

        2. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

          whataboutism ... it's a game the whole family can play ... at parties ... because it's a "party" game ...

  9. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

    But McCarthy took Social Security and Medicare (the real drivers of unsustainable future debt) off the table early on during negotiations.

    Because Fatass Donnie is going all Bernie Sanders on Ron DeSantis in ads attacking the FL Governor for supporting SS/Medicare cuts while in the House.

    And it is working. BIg Gov Donnie is up some 25 points since those ads began.

    1. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

      And yet somehow he still managed to spend less than the svelte Biden, kiddie fucker.

      Hey, remember when you got your original Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography in the Reason.com comments?

  10. creech   2 years ago

    We should not be surprised that 1) elections have consequences and 2) putting most of the media in the hands of one party will not lead to a balanced portrayal of the other party.

  11. SRG   2 years ago (edited)

    Federal spending in 2012 dollars in $billions and as % of GDP for fiscal years 1980 and on. Source OMB:

    1980 1,593.7 21.2
    1981 1,647.0 21.6
    1982 1,681.9 22.5
    1983 1,737.7 22.9
    1984 1,747.3 21.6
    1985 1,872.5 22.2
    1986 1,919.0 21.9
    1987 1,891.5 21.1
    1988 1,938.5 20.7
    1989 2,003.4 20.6
    1990 2,133.1 21.2
    1991 2,157.8 21.7
    1992 2,163.7 21.5
    1993 2,143.9 20.8
    1994 2,185.0 20.4
    1995 2,200.2 20.0
    1996 2,218.5 19.6
    1997 2,229.7 18.9
    1998 2,282.1 18.5
    1999 2,322.4 18.0
    2000 2,380.2 17.7
    2001 2,414.3 17.7
    2002 2,566.2 18.6
    2003 2,678.4 19.2
    2004 2,769.8 19.1
    2005 2,887.1 19.3
    2006 2,995.7 19.5
    2007 2,995.3 19.1
    2008 3,163.8 20.2
    2009 3,737.0 24.3
    2010 3,607.9 23.2
    2011 3,673.2 23.3
    2012 3,526.6 21.9
    2013 3,406.5 20.7
    2014 3,402.8 20.2
    2015 3,563.9 20.4
    2016 3,695.9 20.8
    2017 3,756.3 20.7
    2018 3,789.9 20.2
    2019 4,029.9 21.0
    2020 5,828.5 31.1
    2021 5,900.8 30.1
    2022 5,124.8 25.1

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

      2017 3,756.3 20.7
      2018 3,789.9 20.2
      2019 4,029.9 21.0
      2020 5,828.5 31.1

      This can't be true because Trump Cultists say that Fatass Donnie actually cut spending "across the board" and he was POTUS 2017-2021.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago (edited)

        And who took the House in 2019? So lookie there. When Republicans did have a trifecta they DID cut spending 20.7 to 20.2%... UR such a joke it's pathetic.

        1. JesseAz   2 years ago

          And now dems have the elevated spending as part of the baseline budget. No matter what sock shrike uses it isnt that intelligent.

        2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

          And who took the House in 2019?

          Yes, NANCY TRICKED DONNIE AND MITCH! is always the next excuse for the GOP led runaway spending. Fatass BRAGGED about that record spending.

          You Cultists are so predictable.

          1. Sevo   2 years ago

            turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
            turd lies. Turd is a lying pile of lefty shit, a TDS-addled asshole and a pederast besides.

          2. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

            No moreso than Newt tricked Clinton or Boehner tricked Obama, shreek. It's not our fault that you still don't understand how federal spending works despite having it explained to you at a Schoolhouse Rock level thousands of times.

            1. Sevo   2 years ago

              Any "explanation" is lost on turd; turd is totally and completely dishonest and too stupid besides to understand that (outside of the asshole SRG) most all of us know that.
              turd simply hopes that repeating lies might somehow convince newbies otherwise, which is the reason for my suggestion to make it clear, in response to every turd post, that turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
              turd lies. Turd is a lying pile of TDS-addled lefty shit, and a pederast besides.

            2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD   2 years ago

              He doesn’t care. Lying comes naturally to a pedophile.

    2. SRG   2 years ago

      What the numbers show is that the GOP is not actually interested in reducing government spending, and that a GOP Congress is only interested in cutting spending when there's a Democratic president.

      Hence for all the posturing, their commitment to reducing government spending is about as reliable as a Theranos blood test.

      As mother's lament points out, defence spending should be able to be cut - but in practice, that's the GOP's 3rd rail.

      The difference is clearly, the Democrats are happy to increase spending, but want to increase taxes to fund the spending - which as policy sucks but is consistent, while the GOP want to pretend they don't want to increase spending, but they do, and simply don't want to fund the spending they do want with revenue.

      1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

        This might be a good place to remember that increasing tax rates has never resulted in increased revenues since the income tax was first implemented; and that deficit spending has never stopped in over eighty years regardless of increases in revenues regardless of the cause of the increased revenues. Revenues as a percent of GDP have remained remarkably stable for over eighty years during wild swings in the top marginal income tax rates both up and down.

      2. Truthfulness   2 years ago

        See TJJ2000's reply above... the GOP actually reduced spending when Democrats weren't in the way. You are not telling the whole truth.

        1. Sevo   2 years ago

          "You are not telling the whole truth."

          You are being entirely too kind. Besides being an obnoxiously arrogant piece of shit, SRG commonly lies and suffers from a raging case of TDS.
          For instance, the slimy pile of shit claims (absent any evidence at all) that Trump is guilty of money luandering.
          Stupid shit seems to hope that his claim of being 'educated' is proof against all evidence of both dishonesty and ignorance.
          Eat shit and die, SRG.

      3. Sevo   2 years ago

        "What the numbers show is that the GOP is not actually interested in reducing government spending, and that a GOP Congress is only interested in cutting spending when there’s a Democratic president."

        You might, charitably, see that as sophistry, but that assumes this fucking ignoramus hopes the reader is stupid enough to buy that steaming pile of shit.
        Up yours with a running rusty chain-saw; fuck off and die.

      4. DesigNate   2 years ago

        Tax increases have never covered the spending increases, and with this new crop of Democrats, they’d literally have to confiscate every man, woman, and child’s wealth AND turn them in to chattel slaves to not even cover the total amount of their programs.

      5. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

        It's no less stupid when you temporarily drop the profanity and post the same bullshit from this sock, guv'nah shreek.

        1. Sevo   2 years ago

          Hey, give the assholic piece of shit profanity in return; not like its not deserved.
          Eat shit and die, SRG.

    3. Sevo   2 years ago

      OH, OH, LOOK!
      A list of unassociated data, which the obnoxiously arrogant piece of shit hopes, uh, to show other than his stupidity?
      Fuck off and die, asshole.

  12. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

    They didn’t raise the debt ceiling by an amount. (HT Nardz)

    They set a new date of January 1, 2025. So technically the debt ceiling is now unlimited for the next 19 months.
    They did this because actually having to agree to $36 trillion in the headlines would be impossible to pass.

    This means that during the next recession in 2023-2024 if tax revenue declines and spending increases, they can borrow an unlimited amount of money for the spending spree to re-inflate the economy.

    If Kevin McCarthy were serious about reform, he would have given them a hard $$$ limit increase and then force another debt ceiling debate in six months, highlight how ridiculously fast the debt is growing, and force those painful debates every six months.

    Instead the cut spending about $50 billion. In exchange they are raising the debt ceiling about $4 trillion to get them through two years. This is pathetic. America is fucked.

    They didn’t even really cut spending. They are slowing the rate of growth. Many programs were off limits with no cuts.
    Defense, Social Security, Medicare, etc. They could easily have cut Defense spending by 10%, there is so much waste in there.

    1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago (edited)

      … serious about reform? … don’t make me laugh! Republicans were in control of the House and the Senate and the White House from 2017 to 2019. McCarthy was House Majority Leader during that entire time. If the GOP were serious about spending reform they had two whole years to ram spending cuts through into law and totally eliminate deficit spending! They’re only pretending now, and any other take on the current scenario is just silly.

      1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

        Humorously; see my SPB reply above. They did cut a little and they also cut Obama's BS spending. What's the point your trying to make here? Nothing short of a perfect GOP is worse than Democrats?

        They could and should do a heck of a lot better. But these BS attacks on Republicans for every pinch one can muster up is just that; BS.

        1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

          Where did I say the GOP was worse than the Democrats? The Democrats are clearly worse because they started the big spending every time they had control of the Congress and the White House. What I'm complaining about is that the GOP fails to act in the opposite direction of the Democrats when they have the opportunity to do so. I hate the Democrats AND the Republicans but not equally and not for the same reasons. I hate the Republican Party a little less than I do the Democratic Party, but not enough to vote for them ...

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

            When it comes to spending, you are right.

          2. Sevo   2 years ago

            "...I hate the Republican Party a little less than I do the Democratic Party, but not enough to vote for them …"

            Of course not!! Who in their (obviously damaged) mind would vote for anyone who might help freedom or reduce the size of government if they had "R" following their name?
            Virtue-signaling idiocy...

            1. damikesc   2 years ago

              I would never vote Democrat. There are many cases where voting Republican is not better. A choice between a Democrat and Lindsay Graham is seldom an option with a great deal of difference.

      2. JesseAz   2 years ago (edited)

        In control? McCain, Collins, Murkowski and mcconnel have never not liked a big spending bill. Take them off of a bill with cuts and there is no control for cuts.

        This is the ongoing issue with the both sides screamers. They ignore it only takes 10% of the GOP to join the 100% of the DNC to increase spending but want to blame both parties equally. Just insane thinking.

        1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

          +10000000000; Exactly....

      3. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

        You must be new here. The correct argument is:
        It's Never Team Red's Fault

        If something bad happens under Team Blue's watch, it is because they are stupid/incompetent/evil.

        If something bad happens under Team Red's watch, it is because they were tricked and bamboozled by the stupidity/incompetence/evil of Team Blue.

        1. Don't look at me!   2 years ago

          Poor sarc.

          1. JesseAz   2 years ago (edited)

            Was about to say the exact same thing lol.

            It's the dumb influencing the dumb with jeff and sarc.

        2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          Where did I say any of that, Jeff, you delusional shill.

        3. DesigNate   2 years ago

          Maybe blame the individuals that vote for the spending increases?

          Nah, that would be too radical.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

            I agree with you.
            Now try telling that to everyone who tries to excuse the bad behavior because it's their team looking bad.

            1. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

              See, but nobody did that cytotoxic. Mother's Lament lambasted the GOP for not cutting spending and giving carte blanche for more debt and then you decided to deflect to a strawman because you're a stupid lardass lying piece of shit.

            2. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              "Now try telling that to everyone who tries to excuse the bad behavior because it’s their team looking bad."

              Even when I rage about GOPe perfidy the DNC fifty-centers will cry that I'm "excusing (Republican) bad behavior", because that's the only narrative that they have.

              Media Matters and Open Society aren't exactly sending us their best.

            3. DesigNate   2 years ago

              Well I’m glad that you can see that 100% of one side votes for every spending increase they can (before you say anything about military, I will admit I don’t know the breakdown on those spending bills like I do the Omnibus and other bills, so “every” may be a bit hyperbolic), and never even considers cuts unless they’re forced into it.

              Progress over perfection.

        4. TJJ2000   2 years ago

          It's the "Republicans didn't STOP it ... so it's their fault." approach that is BS...

          "Oh; You left your keys in the car? Well then you deserved to get it stolen. It's all your fault your car got robbed. You can't blame the person that ***ACTUALLY*** took the car when you left the keys in the car."

          Selective blaming and MORE PROJECTION to boot.

      4. Mother's Lament   2 years ago (edited)

        “… serious about reform? … don’t make me laugh!”

        How the hell did you get “serious about reform” from anything that I just wrote? I was clearly saying that McCarthy wasn't.

        1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago (edited)

          The point … not your particular take on it, serious or sarcastic.

  13. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

    I am not against work but there were already work requirements in place for SNAPP. It seems they simple extended them for able bodied people older than 50 years. This is the end of the age spectrum where most people likely will already qualify for a disability. I really wonder how many more people they are really going to cut off SNAPP. I am guessing not enough to save the money lost due to the extra paperwork.

    I would not give the Republicans any credit for this move. Maybe for the IRS savings and the extra COVID money takeback, but little else for the drama we have had over this issue.

    1. JesseAz   2 years ago

      You are really not informed.

      Obama made it vastly easier to claim disability essentially ending work requirements.

      https://www.independentsentinel.com/social-security-disability-increased-by-5-4-million-under-obama/

      1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago (edited)

        SNAP =/= SSDI, idiot.

        Yes, SSDI cases went up because of the Bushpig’s Financial Collapse and massive UE.

        1. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

          SNAP =/= SSDI, idiot.

          Nobody suggested it was, pedophile. Although it's good to see you finally realized that SNAP only has one "P" in it after you changed socks.

      2. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

        So, what, we are not talking SSDI we are talking SNAPP work requirements, which don't include the disabled. I have not heard that this agreement changes the disability requirements. IT will likely just have people over 50 claiming disability if they need SNAPP.

        1. JesseAz   2 years ago

          If you're discussing SNAP, it is income related, not work related dumdum. 42 million are on SNAP. You can get SNAP with a job. Work requirements were not part of it, income was for most. Welfare and disability are the programs that generally require attempts at work.

          https://www.npr.org/2021/08/22/1030099959/the-42-million-americans-who-receive-snap-benefits-are-set-to-get-36-more-a-mont

          1. Moderation4ever   2 years ago

            Take some time and read the article so you know what I am talking about. See the lines,

            "And what did McCarthy get in return? Some minor changes to work requirements for food stamp recipients, which will allow Republicans to posture about being tough on welfare but which won't meaningfully reduce future deficits."

            Food stamps that is SNAP.

            Sorry too many P in earlier comments.

            1. JesseAz   2 years ago

              Try reading the fucking bill retard. It directly mentions welfare, not just SNAP.

              Some of you truly choose ignorance relying on narrative builders of the left.

  14. Jerryskids   2 years ago

    Last I checked, part of the checks and balances of the Constitution was that the House controlled the checkbook for the government. So what's with this "negotiating" with the Executive over how much money is going to be spent on what? The President can make whatever budget proposals he'd like, but it's not like the House has no choice but to bend over and take it. Unless they just like it that way.

  15. Gaear Grimsrud   2 years ago

    And at the risk of beating a dead horse, the entire debt limit/default charade is beside the point. As long as somebody is willing to buy the debt the treasury can spend limitless amounts forever. But thanks to yet another Biden fuckup most of the world's population is positioning to reduce their need for dollars. When HRC waged war on Gaddafi, who posed no threat to the United States, the rest of the world reached the logical conclusion that the US was a rouge nation that could not be trusted. When Biden pulled out of Afghanistan and left our allies and citizens to twist in the wind the rest of the world reached the logical conclusion that the US would not hesitate to abandon their friends. When Biden and the Neocons turned the dollar into a weapon and confiscated Russia's dollar assets the rest of the world noticed and reached the logical conclusion that holding dollars is a risky strategy. The petrodollar is finished despite Joe's fist bump in Saudi Arabia and the world's major economies are rapidly developing alternative currencies. I don't know if the dollar will suddenly collapse or if it will die a long slow grisly death. But someday soon our masters will wake up and wonder what went wrong.

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

      When HRC waged war on Gaddafi, who posed no threat to the United States, the rest of the world reached the logical conclusion that the US was a rouge nation that could not be trusted.

      Yes, it was that and not the Bushpig's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Sometimes the Stupid just stacks up so fast your head spins.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

        Forget it. He is just copy/pasting from his paranoid buddies over at Zero Hedge.

        1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          Interesting how you two Ukraine-flag-waving neo-Neocon pieces of shit pretend that the rest of us supported the Iraq war in your rhetoric, even though none of us did.

          1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   2 years ago

            Team Red was 100% Gung-Ho Iraq War back then, idiot.

            That is when I disowned Team Red forever. Spent like Drunken Sailors, federal takeover of public schools in NCLB, the surveillance spy state, massive welfare programs like Medicare Welfare and ADDA.

            Obama was actually the fiscally responsible successor.


            2009 3,737.0 24.3
            2010 3,607.9 23.2
            2011 3,673.2 23.3
            2012 3,526.6 21.9
            2013 3,406.5 20.7
            2014 3,402.8 20.2
            2015 3,563.9 20.4
            2016 3,695.9 20.8
            2017 3,756.3 20.7

            Remarkable record of spending restraint.

            1. Sevo   2 years ago

              OFFS! turd trots out the same lies the TDS-addled steaming pile of shit has cherry-picked and repeated in the hopes that there are abysmally stupid assholes who do not understand that turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
              If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
              turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
              turd needs to eat shit and die, as a pathetic excuse for humanity.

            2. DesigNate   2 years ago (edited)

              None of us are Team Red you demfag fucktard.

              And you’re so fucking retarded you STILL try to lay the spending cuts at Obama’s feet, even though it was a Republican House that reduced the spending. Just like under Bubba.

              1. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

                And yet at the same time he denies that those cuts even took place. shreek is a lot of things - a pedophile, a Marxist, a faggot - but numerate is not one of them.

                1. Sevo   2 years ago

                  A dishonest and abysmally stupid piece of shit he certainly is!

            3. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

              Nobody here was any % Gung-Ho Iraq War back then, idiot. We're only "team red" because we're anti-you and every evil, demented, warpig idea you stand for.

        2. JesseAz   2 years ago

          No zero hedge links here. Huh. More dishonesty from Jeff?

        3. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

          He should really find some more reliable sources, like Salon, Mother Jones and The Atlantic, all of which you link to on a weekly basis, right cytotoxic?

      2. MWAocdoc   2 years ago (edited)

        Or Orangemadbad’s negotiating a U.S. withdrawal that he left for an incompetent Biden to mismanage and botch. Or MAGatRUMP’s mismanagement of the COVID non-emergency causing the worst economic disaster in U.S. history, including the Federally mismanaged Great Depression.

        1. Mother's Lament   2 years ago

          "tRUMP’s mismanagement of the COVID non-emergency"

          Trump gets blamed for a lot of shit he didn't do, but his Covid fuck-ups were monumental.
          Were the GOPe and the Democrats guilty of worse? Hell yeah. But that still doesn't excuse Trump's participation in the disaster.

          1. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

            And yet MWAocdoc and the rest of the Marxist brigade were screaming like histrionic bitches at the time because Trump devolved authority over lockdowns and vaccine mandates to the state level and "wasn't doing enough."

            1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

              That's simply not true. He failed to manage his own CDC team. Anyone who says that the CDC managed their responsibilities - whether Constitutional or unconstitutional - properly must know nothing about the history of pandemics or the legislative history of the CDC. That says nothing about the Executive Branch's role in preventing Governors from violating the Constitution. Constitutional law is so messed up at this point in history it's almost impossible to sort out what the President's proper role in that debacle should have been, but anyway you look at it the President allowed and, perhaps, encouraged it.

              1. TJJ2000   2 years ago

                Yes; Trump deserves some blame and RINO'S do even more but all that blame doesn't amount to a hill of beans when Democrats keep passing/pushing the evil. It's just another "They didn't STOP it." blame which is considerably mild in consideration to WHAT they didn't stop.

      3. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

        Remember how Obama ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and closed Gitmo on day 1 just like he promised in those dreamy speeches, shreek? Yeah, me neither. I do remember that time you got your original Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography though.

    2. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

      I don't suppose you noticed the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing (21 Dec 1988) or the Gulf of Sidra incident (19 Aug 1981) or the submarine attack on the Queen Elizabeth II (17 Apr 1973)? I didn't think so! Although I certainly did not support the dozens of military interventions by the United States around the world and the ongoing Global War Against Everything We Don't Like, saying that Gaddafi "posed no threat to the United States" is just silly and undermines rational efforts to end U.S. interventionism, exceptionalism and militarism.

      1. DesigNate   2 years ago

        He posed no immediate threat in 2012 or whatever year it was that we offed him…

        1. damikesc   2 years ago

          It also effectively ended the possibility of peaceful nuclear disarmament. He did that and it did not do a damned thing to help him. Why would anybody else do it?

      2. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

        So we executed a color revolution in Libya despite Gaddafi having fully dismantled his weapons programs and cooperating with US military adventurism in Iraq since 2003 because of the Lockerbie bombing 30 years prior? Really? That's what you want to go with here?

        1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

          Nope, but it if suits your narrative to claim I said that, by all means try to go with it ...

          1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 years ago

            That basically what you said.

            Qaddafi turned over a new leaf, self reported his WMD program, and dismantled it. He also stopped international terror after we blew up one of his tents killing his son.

            It was so idiotic removing him- it sent the exactly WRONG message, it disincentivized any regime that would ever think of softening their stance and cooperating with the US

  16. Joe   2 years ago

    "a deal to raise the federal government's debt limit and avert the first default in U.S. history."

    A different opinion on that factoid:

    https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/575722-the-us-has-never-defaulted-on-its-debt-except-the-four-times-it-did/

    1. MWAocdoc   2 years ago

      Yes, and every time the Federal government has defaulted on it's monetary promises it was because Congress failed to take responsibility under the Constitution for situations that were foreseen, sometimes for years in advance, that only Congress has the authority to address - just like now. And every time they got away with it scot-free just as they will now. If the government defaults now it will be the FIRST time in United States history that it refused to pay the interest on its debts, because all of the previous times they simply refused to exchange the certificates of deposit in the form originally promised (gold or silver for worthless paper). Now, of course, the official United States currency isn't even a certificate of deposit. If severe negative economic consequences result from the destruction of the "full faith and credit" of and in the United States of America, the voters have only themselves, and the officials they elected, to blame.

      1. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

        The federal government has 10 times more revenue than is necessary to meet interest payments on the debt and is statutorily obligated to make those interest payments ahead of other budgetary items, but you knew that. The 150 billion dollars we've spent on your Good War in Ukraine alone would have covered 3 months of interest payments.

        1. markm23   2 years ago

          The issue isn't just interest payments. The federal government, like any private business with a good credit rating, purchases almost everything they need on a buy now, pay later basis. That is, you order toilet paper, it is delivered with an invoice, and you have 30 days to pay. And it's the same with everything else, including a contract to design and build a fighter jet - each step is invoiced when complete, and the government has 30 days _or more_ to pay. (When I was in defense contracting, it wasn't unusual to wait 6 months for payment.) The fraudulently-named "debt ceiling" doesn't limit running up debts like this, it just limits borrowing cash to pay those debts.

    2. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

      I don't know if I would consider those defaults. In those cases, the government tried to exchange the payee with compensation that it believed had the same value as the note being exchanged. Default is simply not paying at all.

      1. Dana Talahytewa   2 years ago

        Have your mom mail an envelope full of Canadian Tire money to the bank for her next mortgage payment or try to buy your next case of Cheetos with photocopied Monopoly money and let us know how it goes, cytotoxic.

        The only difference between the United States failing to meet its debt obligations by substituting worthless paper notes for the tangible commodities it promised to its creditors and failing to make interest payments on its debt is that the latter never happened and wouldn't have happened regardless of the outcome of the debt ceiling negotiations because the federal government has more than enough revenues to cover interest payments on the debt and is statutorily obligated to make those payments ahead of discretionary spending. If you weren't a retarded lardass piece of shit who lives in Toronto in his mother's basement, you'd probably know that, cytotoxic.

  17. Sevo   2 years ago

    Who'd you vote for, steaming pile of TDS-addled shit Eric?

  18. chemjeff radical individualist   2 years ago

    Good lord. This is ridiculous. Why does this sort of crap even happen in the first place.

    Bus driver and passenger get into shootout because the passenger asked to be let out in between bus stops and the driver said no.

    https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/28/us/charlotte-bus-shooting/index.html

    Why do people shoot each other over trivial nonsense like this?

  19. Old Engineer   2 years ago

    The US has continually defaulted on its debt since WWII. Ponder this: Lets assume that the debt is $30 trillion. Now inflate the currency by 5%. Presto, the debt is now $28.5 trillion!

    In 1946 the debt was about 120% of GDP. By 1980, the debt was only 35% of GDP. After you factor out increases in population and productivity, what is left is debt default through inflation.

    Yet the fairy tale persists that the US government has never defaulted on it debt.

    A magician uses misdirection to make it appear that something vanished, but no magician could ever match the misdirection of the US government that points at a phony debt limit while it makes your 401k vanish by inflation.

  20. n00bdragon   2 years ago

    haha, money printer go brrrrr

    1. I, Woodchipper   2 years ago

      Debt will be 50 trillion by 2030. Prepare accordingly

      1. perlmonger   2 years ago

        Oh, I have. I've "kept a round for myself", as it were.

        1. yibem   2 years ago (edited)

          Excellent work, Mike. I admire your effort because I currently generate more than $36,000 each month from just one simple online business! I am aware that you may start earning a solid life en-10 online with as little as $29,000 and these are just basic internet operations tasks.
          .
          .
          SITE. ——>>> bitecoindollar.com

  21. Brett Bellmore   2 years ago

    "Let's be clear: the most important part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling and avoid defaulting on the national debt is…avoiding defaulting on the national debt. This agreement checks that essential box."

    No deal would also have checked that box, since default is unconstitutional. The only constitutional response to hitting the debt ceiling is balancing the budget by reducing spending.

    So, basically, he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and we're supposed to cheer because it could have been a bigger defeat.

  22. (Impeach Biden) Weigel's Cock Ring   2 years ago

    I (and America) have certainly been stabbed in the back many times over the years by these worthless piece of shit RINOS, but this might be the worst stab in the back we've gotten yet.

    As others have already pointed out, this garbage deal gives our senile old president and his army of rabid left-wing psychopath bureaucrats a literal blank check for the next year and a half. As in they can can waste as much of our damn money as they want to!

    I hope like hell this shit fails to pass and slimy Swamp shiteeasel McCarthy is removed as Speaker. But I fully expect it'll probably go through.

    This motherfucker Sleepy Joe would probably be jumping for joy in the Oval Office right now if he didn't risk falling down, breaking his hip, and dying. He might celebrate by having Yellen cut Zelenskyyyyyy a check for a trillion dollars, literally anything is possible if this garbage gets through.

  23. Jennifer Harris   2 years ago (edited)

    I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
    🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)

    Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM

  24. tadij70470   2 years ago (edited)

    Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
    .
    .

    Just open the link————————>> http://www.pay.hiring9.com

  25. MichelleHill   2 years ago (edited)

    I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
    🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
    HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com

  26. AlexisSherlock   2 years ago (edited)

    Google pays $300 on a regular basis. My latest salary check was $8600 for working 10 hours a week on the internet. My younger sibling has been averaging $19k for the last few months, and he constantly works approximately 24 hours. I’m not sure how simple it was once I checked it out. This is my main concern…………. GOOD LUCK.
    .
    .
    BONNE CHANCE…………………………. https://Www.Coins71.Com

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Third-Rate Romance

Charles Oliver | 5.30.2025 4:00 AM

'Banal Horror': Asylum Case Deals Trump Yet Another Loss on Due Process

Billy Binion | 5.29.2025 5:27 PM

Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees To Curb Environmental Red Tape That Slows Down Construction Projects

Jeff Luse | 5.29.2025 3:31 PM

What To Expect Now That Trump Has Scrapped Biden's Crippling AI Regulations

Jack Nicastro | 5.29.2025 3:16 PM

Original Sin, the Biden Cover-Up Book, Is Better Late Than Never

Robby Soave | 5.29.2025 2:23 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!