Conservatives Rage Against Debt Ceiling Bill: 'Not One Republican Should Vote for This'
But a lot of Republicans probably will.

Making a deal with President Joe Biden might have been the easy part.
Now, with the clock ticking towards a possible default on the national debt, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) is facing a new challenge that looks pretty familiar: opposition from the right-wing faction within the House Republican caucus, the same group that stalled McCarthy's election to lead the chamber in January.
"I want to be very clear. Not one Republican should vote for this bill," said Rep. Chip Roy (R–Texas) during a press conference Tuesday afternoon called by the House Freedom Caucus, the formerly libertarian group that's maintained its reflexive sense of fiscal responsibility even as it has turned more conservative in recent years.
But as they did during the January showdown over McCarthy's speakership, most Republicans will likely vote for the package and avoid a possible default. Unlike in January, McCarthy is likely to get some support from Democrats—a federal default provides little political upside for the party currently occupying the White House—limiting the leverage the House Freedom Caucus can apply.
But the group's objections are not superfluous. Since March, conservatives in the House have made clear they want to see significant spending cuts attached to any debt ceiling increase. The House passed a bill last month to do that: The Limit, Save, Grow Act would have reset the federal budget baseline to where it was last year, effectively cutting the new spending included in the $1.7 trillion omnibus bill that passed in December. It would also have placed stricter limits on future spending growth for the next decade, rather than a two-year cap on nondefense discretionary spending, which is a part of the budget that isn't really growing anyway.
The House Freedom Caucus is also grumpy about McCarthy's failure to secure a larger cut to IRS funding. The deal will only claw back about a quarter of the $80 billion in new funding given to America's tax cops last year.
"This deal fails—fails completely," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry (R–Pa.) said during the Tuesday press conference. Perry blasted McCarthy for squandering what he said was "the strongest position a Republican has had certainly in our elected lifetimes here, and…probably since we've been paying attention" to force budget cuts that could curb the nation's growing pile of debt.
But that's a telling remark. It seemingly ignores the first two years of the Trump administration, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House—and responded by hiking spending and inflating the deficit.
Members of the House Freedom Caucus may be sincere in their opposition to this deal and their commitment to cutting spending. Unfortunately, the track record of the Trump years suggests Democrats are at least partially correct in their belief that Republicans only use fiscal responsibility as a cynical justification for blocking Democratic policy priorities.
But with just days left until the federal government defaults, the operative question is whether the House Freedom Caucus can translate its opposition to the deal into a legislative roadblock. We'll get that answer late Tuesday, when the House Rules Committee takes up the debt ceiling bill. As Politico reports, that meeting is likely the conservatives' best chance at stopping the bill. That's because the House Freedom Caucus negotiated to get more seats on the powerful Rules Committee during the standoff over McCarthy's speakership election. Roy is a member of the committee, along with two other members of the Freedom Caucus: Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) and Ralph Norman (R–S.C.). Norman has sharply criticized the deal, while Massie has pointed out on Twitter (correctly) the debt limit bill doesn't actually spend any money but only allows for borrowing to fund spending Congress already approved.
"We'll be taking out a second mortgage this week to pay off the credit cards but it's not until September," when the annual budget is set to be debated and voted, "that we're actually buying the bass boat, the tanning bed, and a big screen TV," Massie wrote.
Massie's vote will be critical, but his point is arguably more important. The debt ceiling bill, regardless of what it contains or lacks, is not going to single-handedly solve or doom America's fiscal status. Only more responsible budgeting from Congress and the president can do that.
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.
Please
to post comments
Democrats stand in solidarity, Republicans cave.
I think I saw this movie before.
It’s a long running franchise.
I am making a good salary from home $1500-$2500/week , which is amazing, undera year earlier I was jobless in a horrible economy. I offer thanks toward Godeach day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay itforward and share it with Everyone, Here is website where i startedthis……………..
.
.
EARN THIS LINK—————————————➤ https://Www.Coins71.Com
Dems can't do anything in solidarity; even if you killed all but one of them, he'd find a way to disagree with himself.
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
“Conservatives Rage Against Debt Ceiling Bill: 'Not One Republican Should Vote for This'”
Is ‘conservatives rage’ derivative of ‘republicans pounce’?
And according to the MSM, it's the Dems who made all of the compromises while the GOP was just "taking the world hostage" because they're looking for excuses to destroy all of human civilization as we know it.
"But with just days left until the federal government defaults ..." I was going to post that finally, FINALLY! we had gotten the message through to a "Reason" writer that this is a false statement that is especially dangerous because it plays right into the hands of the big-spending bipartisans who want their constituents to let them off the hook politically for failing to do their jobs in the first place and then blaming the other party for an emergency that isn't even an emergency! There is plenty of tax revenue each and every year to pay the interest coming due on the debt obligations of the Federal government. What they're not saying - and "Reason" is apparently not aware of - is that they don't WANT to pay the interest on their debt instead of sending out pork to their supporters; and they WANT to raise the debt ceiling so they can continue to pay off their supporters by continuing to borrow money.
Yep, came here to say basically the same thing yet again, but that subtle lie is peppered all over the coverage of this showdown for exactly the reasons you stated.
". . . and avoid a possible default" is a lie. They will not default, they will do a partial shutdown, if it ever gets to there, which it probably won't, because:
"McCarthy is likely to get some support from Democrats—" No kidding? They got pretty much everything they wanted.
"a federal default provides little political upside for the party currently occupying the White House—" What default? There's still no danger of that. Plenty of other options.
"But with just days left until the federal government defaults," Why do we just let the left and the media steal a base like that?
Who is the one making this argument, that there won't be a default because there is plenty of money in the Treasury? Do you have a link? I'd like to read a longer form argument on this claim.
Be like Mike.
Fuck off jeff.
Look at every prior discussion regarding shutdowns here before this year. This isn't an obscure discussion.
By the way, Jesse, you're back on mute. Too bad so sad.
You’re so gay.
OH NO!
You're on mUtE, Jesse!
He punished you! Whatever will you do?!
I didn't think Jeff was a Sarcasmic-level attention whore, just a shill. I stand corrected.
Guys. I’m seriously crying right now.
He knows I'm right. Lol.
Oh no. You get to remain ignorant. How will I recover.
I'm sure he won't be able to sleep tonite, jeffypoo.
No one cares Groomer Jeffy. Now go back to your tub of Ben & Jerry’s.
"Who is the one making this argument, that there won’t be a default because there is plenty of money in the Treasury? Do you have a link? I’d like to read a longer form argument on this claim."
No you wouldn't, you're sealioning.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.
Description
The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate",[1][2][4][9] so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.[3][10][11] It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5] Sealioning can be performed by an individual or by a group acting in concert.[12]
You guys constantly try and pull cheap rhetorical stunts a toddler would see through. I hope Media Matters isn't paying you for that one.
So, what you are saying is that asking for proof or evidence is a form of trolling or harassment. Guess I missed that in my HS Debate class. I thought you were expected to give proof for your arguments. All these years I have been doing it wrong.
No. The Wikipedia article I quoted clearly says "pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed".
Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your superpower, sarcasmic #2.
So, you are saying that the request for a link had been previously addressed? Is that correct?
I believe that he's saying that not only is no one making the very specific argument that Jeff is asking for evidence in support of, but the support for the arguments that people are actually making has previously been provided many times.
That the thing, has the support been provided or has the argument simple been advanced several times. Cjeff is asking for proof that there is plenty of money and no one seem to be able to answer that so they throw out the sealion thing.
No one is making the argument that there is plenty of money in the Treasury *currently* to make the interest payments on the debt. That's a position Jeff made up in his head, and therefore no one is obligated to attempt to prove it.
What people are saying, and is provable, is that the monthly revenue for the Treasury far exceeds the monthly obligation for interest payments on the debt. It's in the 10-15% range. The evidence for that has been given over and over.
If you owed someone $1,000 a month and had an income of $10,000 per month, would you need cash reserves in the bank to fulfill your monthly obligation?
Did you ignore the word "tangential" on purpose?
You did, didn't you.
It’s possible M4E just isn’t that bright.
A certainty.
I stuck to the main argument because I don't think tangential applies here. The position that there is really enough money to pay the bills, does not seem tangential.
But the main argument was MWAocdoc's statement. Not Jeff's sealioning attempt at redirection.
There really is enough money to pay the bills on the debt we've already accrued. There is not enough money to do that AND pay for NEW expenses (including expenses already authorized by Congress, but not yet spent).
Let's say the Congresses family has income of $10k per month, owes $2k per month on their mortgage. They also have been spending $10k per month on other stuff, going an additional $2k in the hole on credit cards every month. But the credit cards have minimum payments of only $1k. If the Congresses family would simply STOP SPENDING $2k more than their income, they could easily cover the $1k in credit card debt and the $2k in mortgage debt, leaving them with $7k to spend each month.
Now it comes to pass this month that the credit cards are maxed out, and the card companies will not increase their credit limit. Nor will the banks let them take out 2nd mortgages.
But rather than figuring out a way to live on $7k, and keep paying the mortgage and the credit card bills, the Congresses want to go into bankruptcy proceedings?
There's absolutely no reason to "default" on their loans, their income is more than sufficient to cover their debts, plus a lot of spending, just not as much spending as the greedy bastards want to do.
"the card companies will not increase their credit limit"
This is where your analogy fails. The "card companies" (investors in Treasuries) are willing to extend more credit.
"the Congresses want to go into bankruptcy proceedings?"
No, only Tommy Republican wants to do that, with all of the detrimental effects on their credit rating and financial reputation it would entail. Tommy doesn't understand that canceling $500 in expenses at the end of the year doesn't make more money appear in their bank account, nor that the outstanding balance on their credit card will cost twice as much if they don't pay their bills. Tommy is ignorant, but adamant in his beliefs and won't ask for a credit increase even though there's no other way to pay the bills.
Michael Democrat knows that bankruptcy would be disastrous for their future and would make their $1k in credit card debt become $2k.
The biggest difference is how the two think they should get back to even. Tommy wants to spend less and Michael wants to get a raise. Michael doesn't expect Tommy to do it his way, Tommy does expect the opposite. And Tommy is willing to wreck their finances if Michael doesn't do it his way.
Michael is right about how to solve the immediate problem, but wrong about how to dig out of the hole they're in. Tommy is wrong about how to solve the immediate problem, and would make it harder to dig out of the hole, but right about the long-term solution.
That's how your analogy actually matches reality. It seems like you want to pretend that a credit increase isn't possible. It very much is.
And while the long-term solution is absolutely, 100%, balancing the budget and cutting spending, that won't help us today with the problem we face with the debt limit.
This is where your analogy fails. The “card companies” (investors in Treasuries) are willing to extend more credit.
In my analogy, the credit card companies' decision reflects the debt limit, but okay.
"Michael wants to get a raise"
No, he doesn't. He wants to borrow more money (raising credit card debt). That's not a raise. Although, he may indeed also want to increase the income (revenues), that is a related but somewhat orthogonal result. If Michael can somehow increase income from $10k to $12k monthly, then the credit-card debt limit would have no effect, as they would no longer *need* to borrow money to meet expenses. OTOH, they would probably then just increase expenses to $15K per month.
"Tommy doesn’t understand that canceling $500 in expenses at the end of the year doesn’t make more money appear in their bank account, "
It certainly does. Just because they budgetted $1000 in March for a new suit to be purchased in December doesn't mean they must ACTUALLY purchase the suit. Sure, it's common to consider encumbered (but not yet actually spent) money to be gone, it's not really gone. Deciding in November that the suit is not needed, maybe they'll struggle for one more year wearing last year's Prada, then there is $1000 that was allocated now sitting in the bank available to pay other expenses, or at least not increasing the credit-card debt.
"nor that the outstanding balance on their credit card will cost twice as much if they don’t pay their bills."
But they have enough money to pay all their bills for things already purchased on credit, and to keep the household running in nearly the same fashion it had always been before, if they simply curb some of their spending (even if the new spending was "budgeted for").
"the credit card companies’ decision reflects the debt limit"
Right, which is why your analogy fails. The "card companies" (investors who purchase Treasuries) are eager to give us more credit. The block is internal, not external.
"No, he doesn’t."
Yes, he does. In this analogy, Michael, as the Democrats, wants to raise taxes to balance the budget (so, get a raise to balance their household budget). Which is a future proposition, as are spending cuts. Neither will help with the debt limit issue, which is a problem right now.
"If Michael can somehow increase income from $10k to $12k monthly, then the credit-card debt limit would have no effect, as they would no longer *need* to borrow money to meet expenses."
Exactly, but that won't help now. It will only help in the future. Same with Tommy's plan to cut spending. Neither of those will do anything to help pay the bills that are due today.
"OTOH, they would probably then just increase expenses to $15K per month."
In the real world? Correct. In your analogy, Tommy wants to cut spending and will do it if he can. In the real world, the GOP grows spending just like the Dems, but they claim otherwise.
"It certainly does."
What? The debt likit has been reached due to miey that has already been spent. Not just allocated, but conrracted and promised in return for goods and services that the government needs.
"Just because they budgetted $1000 in March for a new suit to be purchased in December doesn’t mean they must ACTUALLY purchase the suit."
The debt limit isn't reached with unallocated dollars. If they budgeted it in March for a December purchase, it doesn't go on the credit card until December. Same with the government. Only money actially spent counts towards the debt limit.
"then there is $1000 that was allocated now sitting in the bank available to pay other expenses, or at least not increasing the credit-card debt."
The former is not true, the latter is true. But spending less than anticipated doesn't put money in the bank when you are deficit spending. In your analogy, cancelling the suit in April that you budgeted in March for a purchase in December doesn't change your bank account balance in March. It doesn't even change your bank account in December, it just puts less on your credit card.
"But they have enough money to pay all their bills for things already purchased on credit"
No, they don't. They don't have any money on the bank to pay their bills and Tommy doesn't want to let them orrow more to pay today's bills. In the real world, the government doesn't have any money left in the bank. We have more bills than we have money to pay them. You do understand that, right? That the debt limit is about actual, already-spent, the-government-has-this-real-actual-debt-from-a-creditor-today money, not unallocated or future potential spending thay passed in the budget in December?
"if they simply curb some of their spending (even if the new spending was “budgeted for”)"
Yes, if they were Republicans, they would say that they will do that for.the rest of the year, and then not do it. The Dems just won't do it because ***they don't think that cutting spendong is the solution***. That's the part you don't seem to accept. The debt ceiling is about today's bills, the budget is about future spending. Deficit spending, like every year of my life except for a couple years in the Clinton administration.
Ideally Rs will focus on spending and run a PR campaign in the runup to the next budget. But they probably think they'll end up in power in early 2025 and won't want to prevent themselves from doing their own deficit spending, so they won't do it.
“All these years I have been doing it wrong.”
Lol. Too easy.
The debt ceiling bill, regardless of what it contains or lacks, is not going to single-handedly solve or doom America's fiscal status. Only more responsible budgeting from Congress and the president can do that.
So you're saying we're fucked?
Proper fucked?
Depends on what consider a proper fucking. If your definition involves sand paper dildos shoved somewhere very uncomfortable, then yes.
Y'know how sometimes people embed broken glass in concrete at the top of walls as a way to discourage climbers?
That, as a dildo.
I have assumed for a few decades that they won't quit spending until suckers quit buying the debt. It will happen at some point, probably with very little warning. Then s**t will get interesting.
As long as the entire issue gets framed as a question of one side being "hostage takers" and the other heroically "fighting to prevent a default", while the only thing that both parties agree on is that any change to spending and fiscal policy that could possibly change the current trajectory is "off the table", the question isn't if we're fucked now, it's how long until we inevitably will be.
As long as we're committed to a track where it's inevitable that at some point the cost of servicing existing debt will consume all incoming tax revenues, there's a point at which anybody capable of doing basic arithmetic won't be willing to touch US Treasury paper (and the "progressive" true believers won't be able to scrape together the tens of $Trillions needed to buy up the debt), and swatting them on the nose with a rolled up copy of 14A won't change that.
Maybe Biden's plan (or whoever it is that's making "Biden's" plans for things at this point) is to escalate Ukraine into WW3 and moot the entire question before it hits the boiling point?
But as they did during the January showdown over McCarthy's speakership, most Republicans will likely vote for the package and avoid a possible default.
Quit repeating this lie you fucking hacks.
In what way is that quotation false?
I assume the part about a possible default.
The only other explanation is that he actually believes the majority of Republicans will have enough of a spine to vote against this shit, but I see no way anyone could possibly believe that given their history of being spineless pussies.
No, I certainly don't believe that second possibility.
Whew. You gave me a good laugh, though. 😀
Debt is about 10-15% of revenues every month. The only threat of default is Biden not prioritizing debt month to month. Reason used to understand this prior to this year.
No “default” is actually possible. Definitionally, no Republican will be voting to “avoid a possible default” because that option isn’t actually on the table at this point. But I get your point, I should have been more specific.
Default would have to be intentionally done by the executive. No bill will change that. Even with debt limit increased Biden could choose to stop paying the debt. Constitutionally he has to prioritize the debt. And there is enough tax revenue monthly to do so.
Right. I'm just really sick of this constant clamor that we're up against the wall for a debt default, and it'll somehow be GOP Congressmen at fault if it happens.
It's the only thing they talk about (of course with no specifics) on CNBC all day. And all other broadcast media I don't consume I'm guessing. Of course they are "Oh, noez, gotta close Jellystone" instead of pointing out there is plenty of cash to service the debt.
We can’t close Jellystone! Yogi and Boo Boo would starve without pic-a-nic baskets provided by tourists.
Yes, Dems keep saying they will go all 14th Amendment on us and print a bag full of trillion dollar coins. But the 14th Amendment actually requires the Treasury Secretary to pay the interest on the debt first. If there's a revenue shortfall the first step would be to furlough non-essential personnel and shut down government offices. And if they're non-essential, why bring them back?
Because they’re a reliable voting base?
Union contracts. I'd put them in rubber rooms with nothing to do all day. It would actually be great for the economy.
Just use emergency powers to dissolve the union. Problem solved.
Good luck convincing any living Dem that any part of the Constitution actually restricts the authority of the Government in any way to do anything. There's no way to square that idea with the underlying assumptions that "more government is better government" and that "government action is the only appropriate solution to any hardship".
These are the people who shifted seamlessly from full-throated support of letting the Government run ISPs almost directly (supposedly in the name of preventing online censorship) to championing the rights of "private companies" to censor content on social media (in response to "suggestions" from the FBI/DHS); all while calling the opposing party "fascist".
They're also the people who insist that it's crucial to overturn Citizens United because the republic can't survive the extension of 1A rights to "corporations" but also want to see DeSantis imprisoned for violating the 1A rights of Disney, and for even attempting to revoke a deal which allowed one of the world's biggest corporations to also directly install and operate the government of an entire county - including the agencies responsible for regulating their business practices and the safety of the buildings and rides in their theme parks as well as to issue municipal debt to fund corporate operations and exempting them from certain taxes.
Democrats are at least partially correct in their belief that Republicans only use fiscal responsibility as a cynical justification for blocking Democratic policy priorities.
So not a single statement on dems being wrong for not cutting spending and instead they are right statement? This is what the 3rd article blaming gop for not reducing spending while democrats get a full pass?
Yes!
"So not a single statement on dems being wrong for not cutting spending"
The Dems are absolutely wrong about spending, but spending cuts aren't part of their platform. Complaining about that is like Democrats complaining that Republicans aren't protecting abortion rights.
If your party believes in spending cuts, ignoring that when you are in power and expecting the other guys to do it when they are in power is insane. There have been a plethora of articles about the debt, deficit spending, and the lack of spending cuts written here. The reasonable expectation is that the Republicans would cut spending when they are in power.
This is why I see the Republicans as dishonest. They had a chance to cut spending, but they increased it instead. They complain about the deficit, but passed a tax cut that did nothing for middle America and poured an extra $2.5 trillion into the debt hole.
"This is what the 3rd article blaming gop for not reducing spending while democrats get a full pass?"
Why would you expect the Dems to reduce spending? They "get a pass" because they don't claim to be the party of spending cuts. Their solution to fixing the deficit is to raise taxes. That's why people call them, correctly, tax-and-spend. They're wrong, but they aren't hypocrites.
The Rs claim to be the party of spending cuts and fiscal responsibility, but when they have power they never follow through.
How do you not understand such a basic thing?
This is why I see the Republicans as dishonest.
You don't actually see the Republicans as dishonest. You're merely running cover for the Democrats because you're a cheap sockpuppeting shill.
If you were actually honest you'd acknowledge that the establishment wing of the party arranged the deal, and the conservative wing of the party is furious about it.
But you're not honest. You're not paid to be. That's why you're pretending that half the Republicans aren't the only people opposing it.
LOL what a clown show. YOUR hero Reagan started it all. Deficits don't matter... Your allegiance to one of these gangs is the most unamerican position a human can take.
"YOUR hero Reagan started it all."
Reagan was never my hero, Shrike. You stupid fuckers really have no clue about what people outside your blue balloons actually believe, so you prepare all these inapplicable "gotchas" and end up sounding like fucking idiots.
Oh, and quit sockpuppeting for fuck's sake.
Fuck off pedophile.
"You don’t actually see the Republicans as dishonest."
I very much do. Mostly on cultural issues because those are where they have completely lost touch with reality. This, on the other hand, is the area that I usually agree with the Rs. We need to balance the budget, cut spending, and reform the tax system. Personally, I support a flat tax with each individual paying for only themselves.
"If you were actually honest you’d acknowledge that the establishment wing of the party arranged the deal"
You mean they aren't Republicans? Or do you want to pretend that the only "true" or "real" Republicans are on the hard right? How many of them voted for the spending increases of 2017-2019? And for the ones who supported spending increases when Trump was President and oppose them now, why is calling them dishonest wrong?
Compromise is what politics is all about. The anti-deal group will end up being about 25% if Republicans, most of them known bomb-throwers. There will be a smaller group of Progressives who throw the same sort of tantrum and, together, they will fall well short of stopping it.
Controlling spending will only happen when Rs have both the legislative and the executive. Since Ronald Reagan won the Presidency, they've had that three times. So far they are 0-3 on cutting spending.
But they're the only chance for fiscal responsibility, so all I can do is hope that they realize they are killing themselves with the abortion, teacher/groomer, and trans garbage and get back to being a responsible party with sane policies like controlling spending.
You mean they aren’t Republicans?
Oh look, DOL's pulling the Jeff maneuver and changing what I said into something completely different that he can argue against instead. Fucking pathetic.
killing themselves with the abortion, teacher/groomer, and trans garbage
Better killing themselves than killing babies, romancing preteens and cutting off children's junk like team blue, you evil fucking monster.
"changing what I said into something completely different"
You said, "you’d acknowledge that the establishment wing of the party arranged the deal". Which apparently is most of the party, looking at the numbers. What am I "changing"?
"killing babies"
No one is killing babies. Baby has a definition and fetus doesn't meet it,
"romancing preteens"
Teachers aren't doing that any more than the general population. And teachers don't enable, cover up, and defend pedophiles like most conservative organizations like the Boy Scouts.
"cutting off children’s junk"
The .001% result should be treated as if it's mainstream or common? Be a little more dishonest, why don't you?
"you evil fucking monster"
If supporting individual liberty and opposing government force in service of a dying cultural hegemony is evil, fuck yeah I am.
“completely lost touch with reality.”
Would that be the same reality where a fetus is a human being, teachers have bragged on video about convincing students they’re trans or non-binary (completely ignoring that plenty of straight teachers have been caught grooming kids for sexual relationships so acting like it’s never happened is beyond disingenuous), and boys will never become girls so it’s not “affirming care” to block puberty and let them put woman face on?
"a fetus is a human being"
It isn't.
"teachers have bragged on video about convincing students they’re trans or non-binary"
Anecdote as broad accusation? Dishonest, much?
"plenty of straight teachers have been caught grooming kids for sexual relationships"
Not at a higher rate than the general populace. And they usually help the investigation and prosecution, as opposed to hiding and enabling like the Boy Scouts and various religious groups.
"boys will never become girls"
No one thinks they can change chromosomes or internal organs, so this gaslighting talking ooint by conservatives is sad and pathetic.
"to block puberty"
Yes, a temporary pause of puberty with no permanent side effects under the care of a doctor is so bad that medically-ignorant strangers should use the government to stop it. That isn't unreasonable at all.
Tell me how the GOP can run rough shod over the presidency, the senate, with a bare majority of the House where a good chunk act like Democrats.
I'll wait.
But this is the problem. You castigate the people trying to lower spending while ignoring those asking for increases. Please tell me how this motivates people to cut spending.
Again. I'll wait.
“where a good chunk act like Democrats”
They don’t act like Dems, but they understand that politics is compromise. Holding your breath and turning blue isn’t a viable strategy.
The debt limit was always going to be raised. The Rs got what they could when they had no leverage. Take the W.
“You castigate the people trying to lower spending while ignoring those asking for increases.”
I don’t. I’m just not fooling myself that this was the tine or the place to get results. Looking back at the tbings we”ve already bought and believing that could cut spending is nuts. Spending happens in the budget, not a debt ceiling debate where the only leverage is blowing up the economy.
Also, the fact that you think any side in the decision to raise the debt ceiling is spending anything shows you don't understand what the debt ceiling is about.
“Please tell me how this motivates people to cut spending.”
The problem the GOP has is they haven’t put their money where their mouth is. Voters don’t believe they’ll ever cut spending because when they’ve had the chance, they haven’t. What will motivate people to cut spending is to cut spending, not just talk about it and then fail to act.
Weird how you went from attacking the gop for not standing firm and then demanding compromise from those asking to spend more. Lol.
Keep your narratives consistent dumdum.
He is actually correct that the GOP doesn't cut spending when they have the chance, even if it is the only non bullshit point in the babbling.
And the Democrats do not suggest cutting spending ever.
What seems to be the argument landed on here is being insufficiently and inconsistently for spending cuts is worse than being consistently for spending increases.
"And the Democrats do not suggest cutting spending ever."
No shit. That's like saying, "the Republicans do not suggest protecting abortion rights ever". Why would Democrats pursue a Republican fiscal policy when it is diametrically opposed to theirs?
Republicans have to stop being surprised that the party that believes more taxes is the solution to the budget deficit opposes spending cuts. Only an idiot would assume otherwise.
"What seems to be the argument landed on here is being insufficiently and inconsistently for spending cuts is worse than being consistently for spending increases."
No, the argument is that the expectation is that those who advocate for spending cuts will cut spending and oppose raising taxes, while those who advocate for government spending will raise taxes and oppose spending cuts. It's not that hard to understand.
The fact that Rs want to push fiscally responsible policies during the debt ceiling debate and when Ds are in control, but not during the budget process (when spending is determined) or when they are in control makes them look like hypocrites and political hostage-takers. Probably because that's what they are doing.
The Rs are fucking us all over. They have the superior fiscal policies. They have the better plan to grow the economy (although the supply-side stupidity messes it up). Reduce taxes for the middle class, reduce unnecessary regulation, stop privatizing profits and socializing losses through bailouts, decrease government spending, and push accountability for spending. Why can't they pass those policies when budgets are determined and when they have power?
With republicans like Bitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, you hardly need democrats to fuck things up. And notice that !cConnell has been nearly silent on all of this.
Don't forget that scumbag Mitt Romney.
"attacking the gop for not standing firm"
I did the opposite. The debt ceiling isn't where spending is determined. I don't think the Rs should have attempted to get a do-over of past spending bills (many of them theirs) just because they are willing to threaten to blow up the building. There should have been a clean debt ceiling bill.
"demanding compromise from those asking to spend more"
Again. Genius, no one is talking about "spending more". Only the determinedly ignorant think that any of the spending that is pushing the debt limit is new. It's all old, some of it decades old.
My narrative is consistent. The debt ceiling isn't the budget. Anyone who pretends otherwise is being dishonest. The only leverage the Rs had was to threaten to blow up the economy, which is a horribly irresponsible thing to do, especially since they are equally responsible for the problem. The Rs got something for nothing. They should take the win.
The only way to cut spending is to cut spending. In the budget. When it is passed.
Not afterwards, and not using a default on debts (not just servicing the $31 trillion national debt, but all of our obligations) as a threat when you know you have idiots in your caucus (or running for President) who don't care about the consequences or are too ignorant to understand them.
" It’s all old, some of it decades old."
There would be no need to borrow more money and increasing the debt if spending was cut to match revenues. The only reason to borrow more money today and increase tomorrow's debt load is to enable spending above revenues. That spending tomorrow's money today.
Perhaps (?) you're meaning that some programs responsible for today spending were enacted decades ago? Still, there's a reason to try to rein that spending in, because today's outflows on those programs far exceed anything imagined when the programs started, which I'd count as new spending (authorized in the last year or two).
"Perhaps (?) you’re meaning that some programs responsible for today spending were enacted decades ago?"
Exactly. Social Security and the VA are two prime examples. Both have funding that was authorized decades ago. Nor are they the only ones.
"Still, there’s a reason to try to rein that spending in"
I agree completely. There are a number of people here who falsely conflate my opposition to debt ceiling brinksmanship with an opposition to cutting spending. Nothing could be less true.
"which I’d count as new spending (authorized in the last year or two)."
I wouldn't go that far, but we need to get down the costs of some of the social programs. For example, I think if we raised the SS age by one year every two years for the next decade that would be a reasonable way to reduce costs. We all know there are ineffective and duplicative programs, but without a standardized way to assess them, it always devolves into politics and demonization, rather than objective targeting of ineffective programs.
So creating an objective method (part of the GAO, maybe?) that would take the assessment away from politicians and rate them on how well they were addressing the problem they were created for would help. Rs cutting a D project is politics, Rs cutting a program with 33% effectiveness makes it much less so.
It's so strange, to have gone from "government shutdown!!!!!" to "default on our debt!!!!!!" when people realized that the government shutdowns were a good thing.
Unfortunately, the federal government won't default on it's debt because it has plenty of money in the "bank" to cover it's debt. This whole scare tactic, is so boring.
But it WILL raise the debt ceiling and continue to borrow money to allow continued deficit spending on pork while pretending that the alternative is default because their constituents are terrified.
>>with the clock ticking towards a possible default on the national debt
nope.
And that's not happening, so... still fucked.
a possible default on the national debt,
They will not be defaulting on their debts, whether or not they borrow more money. Borrowing money is not tied to paying off the current T-bills. Hope this helps.
It seemingly ignores the first two years of the Trump administration, when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House—and responded by hiking spending and inflating the deficit.
You CAN'T say this out loud, Eric! The Team Red apologists and Trump Cultists will get all butt-hurt.
You can say it but it's a blatant LIE and is demonized as such.
Compulsive LIAR.
Everyone was raging against the agreement in the Roundup this morning, which must be why you've chosen to lie about us here, instead of there.
You probably wouldn't get your fifty-cents if you posted this there.
Of course you are opposed to big spending now that there is a (D) president.
I was referring to how much you support $6.5 trillion annual federal spending when there is an (R) president.
"I was referring to how much you support $6.5 trillion annual federal spending when there is an (R) president."
You just can't stop lying, can you? I opposed every single one of Nancy Pelosi's giant spending bills, from the ones Trump tried to veto, to the ones he didn't. I did it right here and the record in the comments is available and clear.
You know who didn't oppose them at the time?
You.
If you're going to try and troll at least do it with plausible accusations, you useless fuck. And maybe something that you're not guilty of yourself.
Hahahahahahaha, you still don’t know where spending bills originate.
Hahahahahahaha
Shreek, you’ve really gotta kill yourself now. If you try and hold on, you’ll get caught with your kiddie porn, or even possibly for raping little boys. Either the cons torture you on the block, or some former victims or parent of a victim tortures you to death. Which sounds awesome from my perspective, but you might want to end things now, so your weasely child raping ass doesn’t endure that misery.
You know I’m right.
He doesn't read his own links. Why would he read comments?
There the Democrats were, minding their own business when... All OF A SUDDEN!
Extra COVID spending (i.e. stimulus checks) was a mistake, just like TARP spending was a mistake. Any time Repubs hike spending for an "emergency," Dems take that one-time emergency budget as the new baseline.
And every time, people warn them in advance this is going to happen, and they ignore it.
But if reason wants to see change they need to stop setting their derision to those that try to cut spending. Where are their articles praising the gop members voting no like the Freedom Caucus?
Abortion is more important than the economy turning into a basket case, dontchaknow.
It's like no matter what stories they tell at election time, Republicans with even partial power over the federal government actually want that government to expand and increase their power...
No, it's true.
2017 vs 2016 spending did increase by $120.5B (about 3.3%).
2018 vs 2017 spending also increased by $80B (about 2.5%).
2019 revenues were an all-time high.
By way of comparison, 2016 vs 2015 increased by $129.2B (about 4.4%).
2015 vs 2014 increased by $148.5B (about 5.3%).
2014 vs 2013 increased by $519B (about 22%).
A fatter budget for the feds?
“But a lot of Republicans probably will.”
versus
“All Democrats are practically guaranteed to.”
Libertarian-Republicans are the only hope. Sure it would be nice if they were more ?perfect? but cursing at the best (building gang-hate) is a sure way to end up with the worst (Nazi's).
Yes. Many of us vote Republican because we’re pragmatic and not because we are devout believers. But we have to hold the Republicans feet to the fire and get them to vote for libertarian principles. We also have to get more people like Rand Paul or even fiscally responsible Republicans in congress and get rid of those that are in it for themselves, e.g. Mc Connell, Graham, and others that are swamp creatures (sorry for the term, but it fits) and part of that silent system that is in it for the graft and then retire to be in corporate boards that give the graft to politicians to use government for financial gain. Yeah, I kind of went off a bit unhinged at the end. But you get my drift.
What do you do to Democrats?
They hold the reins over the Senate and the White House. When do they get punished for supporting excessive spending?
Between the democrats and republicans, how could we go wrong?
By electing Democrat trifecta's....
As-if that wasn't obvious from their long list of Nazi policy.
Ok Reason, these types of articles are becoming tedious.
Show us your cards. Time to make a decision, a vote. What would you vote for? Of course the bill sucks, thanks for stating the obvious. Now tell us: up or down?
You want them to display integrity?
Don’t hold your breath.
Just so tiresome. Reason always sits on the fence and damns both sides. Well join the crowd, EVERYONE hates both sides. That's all besides the point. On each big issue you have to choose ONE. Reason can't ever seem to get off that fence and make a stand based on a real choice.
Do a Ronald Reagan and fire 10% of the Federal bureaucrats across the board. Employers in the US are having a very hard time finding employees, especially in the fast food industry. These fired bureaucrats would slow down production a bit, but are perfect for flipping burgers, washing dishes, and waiting tables. The upside is that these folks would maybe learn to work for a change. Just don’t put them in charge of the cash register.
+10000000 🙂
10% sounds like a good start... But let's not stint. Make it 20%.
Or just don’t replace them as they retire. I’m not sure what the numbers look like today, but around 2010 it was calculated that doing that would reduce federal employment by 20% within five years.
Good idea.
Will congressional paychecks be lowered by so much as a penny apiece?
I could care less about the salary. Target the pensions.
I see all these comments about how we won't default on our debt. That's only true if you assume that paying the military, Social Security, pay purchase orders for every depatment in the government, etc.
You're trying to shift the definition of default from "failing to pay the debts the US owes" to "failing to service the $31+ trillion national debt".
That's just playing semantic games. Every debt authorized by past legislation that we fail to pay is a default. And we would default on our debts if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
Claiming otherwise is either willful dishonesty or a desperate attempt to pretend that the US failing to pay what it promised to is no big deal.
Another lie from another communist shitheel. It must be a day ending in a Y.
Which part are you falsely labeling as a lie?
Almost everything you're saying is completely wrong. Both the Constitution and federal statute specify that the debt is the only thing that must contractually be paid under all circumstances.
In fact, the Supreme Court has clearly and specifically ruled that even Social Security is NOT a binding contractual obligation, it's a benefit that the government can put on pause, reduce, or even eliminate entirely at any time for pretty much any reason.
The case is called Flemming v Nestor, 1960, and it's still the operative constitutional law in effect today. Look it up and do some research and get better informed.
"the debt is the only thing that must contractually be paid under all circumstances"
And? Defaulting on everything else is what will get us downgraded, skyrocket the cost of servicing our existing debt, and crush the economy.
Do you think that if you only break your obligations to some people that no one else will notice? Default is default, whether servicing the debt or paying for a submarine.
"In fact, the Supreme Court has clearly and specifically ruled that even Social Security is NOT a binding contractual obligation"
What do you think would happen to our borrowing costs to service the debt if we don't pay Social Security? If one of our major parties is willing to fuck over those on a fixed income to make a political point, what do you think the thought process will be of those considering buying Treasuries? "Well, they're willing to screw over their own seniors, but I'm sure they'll honor their obligations to our foreign investment fund."? No, they will find other places to put their money and our costs to finance our debt will rise significantly.
You seem to believe that if we do the very least that the law requires, there won't be any fiscal repercussions. That is a very stupid thing to believe.
Guess what would happen if, when our debt costs 25% or 50% more to service, you tell the global markets, "But, but, but, Flemming v Nestor!".
That is why I asked for a citation with a more detailed explanation of this argument. The argument of "the government can't default because it has enough money to service the debt" sounds too simplistic to be true.
It isnt sea lion. There are dozens of articles to choose from. Including prior Reason articles regarding government shut downs and debt limits.
Future spending is not a debt. Discretionary spending not yet spent is not a debt. Most moderately informed economists know this sea lion.
"Future spending is not a debt. Discretionary spending not yet spent is not a debt."
Anything that has been legislated and taken on as an obligation is a debt. Social Security. Salaries for any federal worker, including the military. Maintainence and upkeep costs fir physical infrastructure. Ongoing projects. Asset purchases. The list is almost endless. Just because the contracted work hasn't been finished yet diesn't mean we don't have to pay for it.
So yes, if it has been contracted already, future spending is a debt. Discretionary spending that has already been spent is a debt. As a country we can't just choose not to pay obligations we already signed on for. Default on ANY debt is not an option.
I will, once again, try to explain to you. If you buy a car with 60 payments and you've only paid 10, you have a debt. For 50 more months into the future, failing to pay is a default.
“Future spending is not a debt. Discretionary spending not yet spent is not a debt.”
Is that really what he tried to argue?
So it's entirely a semantic argument then. The future spending is promised either by law or by contract. The discretionary spending not yet spent is promised either by law or by contract. So if the government "defaults", he can call it "not-a-default" all he wants, but someone is still going to get screwed.
It is reality jeff. How much allocated money each budget cycle goes unspent and is not required to be spent?
Work it out dumdum.
That money has already been spent to push back the date of default. It isn't that we run out of allocated money. We run out of ALL money. As in we have spent everything we have on hand and are have negative net receipts going forward.
I'd be careful about throwing the "dumdum" rock around, Glass Houses.
No. It isnt. You are mixing up budgets, appropriations and the impoundment act dumdum.
The executive does not have to spend every dollar allocated. Full stop. They just have to spend for the direction of appropriated funds and can't ignore a duty legislated.
But here is where we get into the reality. The legislature has competing guidance. Once for allocation and duties and one for a cap on spending in excess of revenues. The latter has control of the say as the executive is not required to spend every allocated dollar dumdum. See the billions left over from covid allocations as an example.
You and Jeff are competing for the dumbest leftists here.
You're too clueless to understand that calling someone else "dumdum" is projection.
"The executive does not have to spend every dollar allocated."
No shit, Sherlock. No one that I've seen has made that argument. But once that money has been spent, regardless of when the payment is due, it is a financial obligation. A debt. Even if the payment comes due in the future, it's a debt.
"Once for allocation and duties and one for a cap on spending in excess of revenues"
Yes. And the obligations we have made must be the controlling interest, since defaulting on our debt - ANY of our debts - will have grave fiscal AND economic consequences.
If you compare the impact, on the day after, between raising the debt limit (absolutely no fiscal or economic change from the day before) and defaulting on our debt (meaning our prior financial commitments to anyone), the difference is stark amd clear.
We don't have any money left on hand. We have net negative revenues going forward. If we don't borrow more we will default on some of our obligations.
How do you not understand a simple concept: we don't have any money to pay for things that we already bought. The only choices are to borrow money to pay our bills or refuse to pay our bills. There is no third possibility.
"See the billions left over from covid allocations as an example."
That isn't actual money on the bank, dumbass. That's unallocated dollars that haven't been spent, which now can't be spent due to the deal. So money that could have been spent, but wasn't (and wasn't likely to be spent) now can't be spent. That doesn't change the available mlney on hand one iota.
I get that you have a blind obedience to the hard right narrative. But a ban on spending money that already wasn't being spent doesn't create any more money to pay bills.
"Anything that has been legislated and taken on as an obligation is a debt."
No it's not. Not if it has not already been spent. New legislation can erase old legislation.
For example, the COVID money that was allocated but is still sitting in federal hands, unspent. New legislation can prohibit that unspent money from being spent, and claw it back for other spending.
HUD block grant funding that has been approved, but not yet assigned (spent) can be eliminated.
That new fancy plane the Air Force spent $10B developing, it can be cut.
Headcount at agencies can be reduced by legislation. Salary increases can be eliminated by legislation.
"No it’s not. Not if it has not already been spent."
That's what "taken on as an obligation" means. There's plenty of future payments that will come due from past purchases (military equipment, especially larger-ticket items like bombers or tanks, for example) that we will have to pay when the bill arrives.
"the COVID money that was allocated but is still sitting in federal hands, unspent"
Agreed. That isn't part of what is causing us to reach the debt ceiling since, as you said, it was unspent. It's great that it has been clawed back, but it doesn't help with the immediate problem, nor will it decrease spending since it already wasn't being spent. Of course some politician would probably try to use it as a slush fund to build a border wall or forgive student loans or some other idiocy, so stopping that is a good thing.
"New legislation can prohibit that unspent money from being spent, and claw it back for other spending"
I'd rather claw it back and not use it for any spending at all. Eliminate it entirely.
"HUD block grant funding that has been approved, but not yet assigned (spent) can be eliminated."
Without assessing whether the projects are needed or not? That seems like cutting for cutting's sake. And again, the assumption that cutting should happen as part of the debt ceiling isn't a good thing. That's what the budget process is for.
"That new fancy plane the Air Force spent $10B developing, it can be cut."
Not if we've already contracted for it. What's the logic for cutting a military plane? Just because it costs a lot? That isn't cutting in a smart and effective way. That's just cutting for the sake of cutting.
"Headcount at agencies can be reduced by legislation."
True, but what is the justification for blind headcount cuts? There has to be a reason to choose what to cut and it needs to be specific and targeted or you're back in the realm of political theater. This is too important for that.
"Salary increases can be eliminated by legislation."
This is even a worse idea. What justifies taking away someone's raise without having it connnected to job performance? Why punish the middle class for a failure during the budget process six months ago?
We have to cut spending, but it has to be smart. It has to be effective. It has to be targeted. Random cuts, especially ones that impact workers, aren't defensible nor effective.
The government can default. The point is that it doesn't have to and won't be forced to if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
"The government can default."
We can also launch nuclear weapons at our own cities. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it isn't catastrophic.
"The point is that it doesn’t have to"
Correct. We can borrow the money we need to pay our bills.
"and won’t be forced to if the debt ceiling isn’t raised."
Yes, we will. We don't have the revenue necessary to pay our bills. People who produce things for the government based on a signed contract or are promised things like salaries need to get money, not platitudes about how we aren't actially defaulting on our debt to them, we just aren't going to pay them.
And “the government can’t service its existing debt without creating more debt” sounds better to you?
Talk about simplistic.
A purchase order in the future is not a debt dumdum.
Really? Clearly you've never contracted on a 120 day lead. If you order it, you owe.
The contracts haven't been sent out retard. There are billions unspent in covid money as an example.
How are you retards so ignorant? Allocation caps are not required to be spent to the dollar. For fucks sake. Educate yourself. This is pathetic.
If they were educated they wouldn’t be far left democrats.
There isn't a Covid fund filled with money, dumbass. There's allocated money thag hasn't been spent. "Clawing back" Covid funds means that we can't contract that money out. But we weren't doing that anyway.
Do you think that by clawing back the Covid money there is actually cash available to spend?
You are clueless. You saying "whatabout" up to avoid acknowledging the truth: without raising the debt ceiling, we have no way to pay our bills and the cost of defaulting is catastrophic.
Planned future government spending isn't a debt.
Which is good, because the democrats are planning tens of trillions of dollars in nonsense Marxist spending.
The claim "the government can't default because it has enough cash in the treasury to pay the interest on the debt" simply seems to be too simplistic of an argument. I mean, maybe it's correct, but I'd need more assurance by looking at the details.
In either event, even if that argument is correct, if the debt ceiling isn't lifted, *someone* is going to get screwed. It may not be the guy holding the T-bill note, but it is going to be the government contractor or the government employee who doesn't get paid instead. Cutting spending is fine and all, but not at the expense of screwing over people with valid government contracts.
Then go look for the fucking details jeff. You have mo interest on it though sea lion.
Your argument here is simply defending all government spending ever. That's it.
Paying for purchases already made is simply called meeting your obligations.
They aren't already made dumdum. You keep ignoring reality in your argumentation from ignorance.
And here I thought AOC was the world's densest leftoid. Or is this her sock in the flesh?
Oh, Jesse is not dumb. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is a dishonest Team Red shill.
"They aren’t already made dumdum."
Yes, dumbass, they have. Do you think that everyone in the government is hiding money somewhere?
"You keep ignoring reality in your argumentation from ignorance."
Reality is that we don't have enough money to pay our bills unless we raise the debt limit. Anyone claiming anything else is lying to you.
If you are a government employee or contractor, you have no one to blame but yourself. Government cancels contracts all the time.
"Government cancels contracts all the time."
Why would the government cancel existing contracts for things that they need? It's not like they're suddenly not going to need ammunition or paper clips or cars or any one of the literally millions of things the government purchases each year. Or that the people who work in the government aren't going to expect to be paid for their work. Or that seniors are going to give up Social Security.
It's like conservatives don't understand how a large organization works. You guys probably think businesses can just decide to move production to another country and have it happen in a couple months. Or that if you need something in quantities like the Federal Government uses, that can happen instantly. You probably think that ordering anything on a multi-month lead is unnecessary because ... well, because you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
So tell me, geniuses. What is accomplished by breaking (and paying the penalties for breaking) contracts for things thay are needed? And what is the justification for refusing to pay obligations to citizens?
Because "we didn't like the udget that passed 6 months ago" isn't a valid reason to fail to follow through on fonancial obligations.
"Why would the government cancel existing contracts for things that they need? "
Because they decided they didn't REALLY need that.
I've worked on multiple projects that the government canceled for convenience (rather than for cause). In one case, a system we were working on was canceled because the spending was re-allocated to Trump border wall. Another system we were maintaining was deemed redundant to a new system that was not yet online, but the old system was terminated anyway.
Maybe we don't REALLY need 80k new IRS employees, virtually none of whom have been hired.
"Because they decided they didn’t REALLY need that."
Who is it that decided such a thing?
"I’ve worked on multiple projects that the government canceled for convenience (rather than for cause)."
So your solution for having too many expenses is to add cancellation penalties to the tab? Because there are always cancellation clauses. And which projects would you cancel? Because if it's something that was needed, you'll just have to re-contract for it, after going through another round of costly and time-consuming appropriations.
You seem to believe that the government can just cancel anything without an repercussions and that there's no need to determine what will or won't be necessary. It's a naive view of the complexities of running a huge organization.
"Maybe we don’t REALLY need 80k new IRS employees, virtually none of whom have been hired."
This is a perfect example of political, not objective, spending cuts. You have no idea whether they do or don't need those employees to accomplish their priorities. This is the sort of thing that needs to be prevented in order to actually have spending cuts that stick. Cutting today and having the cuts reversed because necessary things were randomly cut isn't going to get long-term savings.
The reps whining about the bill, justifiably, have to - to demonstrate fiscal conservatism. But enough of them will have to vote yes to pass it. It's all a loaded blame game after all. The house passes a bill to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling, the Senate and President do nothing, and the media is largely quiet. If the Republicans fail to pass this, then the media will howl with how this whole situation is all the Republican's fault, and it'll stick.
I don't think you have laid it all out correctly. The Senate is controlled by Democrats and would likely like a clean bill, so there is little for them to do. The President had a budget and so asked the Republicans for a budget and the Republican bill was not ready till late April. That is when negotiations started. Now that they have a deal, we see some Republicans balking. You are right Republicans will catch the most flak, but they are the ones failing to hold up their end of the deal.
They haven’t failed to hold up anything. There wasn’t a bill passed until late April. So?
"then the media will howl with how this whole situation is all the Republican’s fault, and it’ll stick."
Because it would be.
How?
Because he hates republicans and their efforts to stop democrats from doing everything they want to do.
Because there isn't an option to raising yhe debt limit and every sane politician knows it. The Rs manufactured a controversy and managed to get concessions when they had no leverage.
But if the lunatic fringe blows everything up because they didn't get everything they wanted? That's all on them.
Rs got something for nothing. Why can't they pat themselves on the back and take the W?
Maybe he didn't mean a word of it, but it was one time he got it right. Of course, he did a 180 as soon as he was the President.
March 16, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S2237-2238:
“Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to
$8.6 trillion. That is ‘‘trillion’’ with a ‘‘T.’’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and
health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans—a debt tax that Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators CONRAD and FEINGOLD, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and
to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending.
As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus
the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years.
That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.
Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit”
So the better play for the GOP would have been to let the Democrats have their way from the start?
How would you have played the GOP's hand better that is realistic to the political situation?
The part you don't want to acknowledge is that the debt ceiling was always going to be raised. There aren't enough wingnuts at the fringes to cause a default, thank God.
Raising the debt ceiling isn't "the Dems hav[ing] their way from the start". Do you really think that the Ds were pro-raise and the Rs were anti-raise? The Ds weren't willing to play politics with default and the Rs were, but at the end of the day the only division is between those who know what a disaster a default would be (most of both parties) and tnose that don't.
Dems wanted a "clean bill", raining the debt ceiling without question or compromise. Republicans knew that they would have to increase the debt ceiling, too, but there was no need to hand Democrats a clean bill (giving them everything they wanted), so creating a compromise bill that attaches at least some Republican desires gets them *something* and Democrats didn't get everything they wanted. That's what compromise entails.
Actually, what I'm sure Democrats wanted was a clean bill and a LOT more spending.
"raining the debt ceiling without question or compromise"
Yes, because the time that questions and compromises about spending are debated is during the budget process. That was six months ago.
Raising the debt limit is about defaulting on our financial obligations (all of them). It isn't about spending. That's already been done. The bebt limit is only about paying the bills we owe and the failure to do so would be catastrophic.
"attaches at least some Republican desires gets them *something* and Democrats didn’t get everything they wanted. That’s what compromise entails."
Why attach R desires? They already had the chance to do that when the budget was passed six minths ago.
The only leverage the Rs had was creating a default. The Dems didn't "get everything they wanted". Raising the debt ceiling wasn't a Dem desire, it was a national necessity to prevent blowing up the American economy. It isn't a compromise when one side is trying to do the bare minimum to avoid disaster and the other side is flicking lit matches at a powder keg.
"Actually, what I’m sure Democrats wanted was a clean bill and a LOT more spending."
No one was asking for new spending. A clean bill means raising the debt ceiling and nothing else.
I can't help but think that many of the far right would be happy with a default. I think there is element in that group that likes chaos. Consequences be damned they just want to tear the system down. I would point out that while sometime you can rebuild an economy, sometimes you can't. It is a gamble I would rather not take.
It's going to happen soon in any case, you fucking nitwit. Servicing the debt was 200 bill in 2020. 500ish bill this year. A third of the 31 trillion will roll over in the next 3 years at higher rates than the original was floated at. By 2030 the servicing cost will be close to a trillion or virtually all discretionary spending. At some point no one willl buy it so why not stop it now. It will be worse later. Wimpy will end up not paying for that Tuesday hamburger at some point, pain now or more pain later. Make the call, Einstein.
I did not say the Congress should not address the debt, rather I said that it should not default on the debt. Defaulting on the debt risks chaos, addressing the debt through proper budgeting is the route that should be used. There is a difference.
We are in no danger of immediately defaulting on the debt. That is a lie.
Yes, a lie that everyone who knows anything about economics is lying about because they're all in the tank for the Democrats.
They should not raise the debt ceiling or default on debt. This isn't on Republicans, it is on all of congress for failing to restrain spending and live within their means.
"it is on all of congress for failing to restrain spending and live within their means."
Agreed! I 100% agree with you. But you are expecting the party that believes they can tax their way to a balanced budget secretly agrees in cutting spending.
Expecting the Ds to cut spending when that is specifically NOT their fiscal plan is insane. If you want the government to cut soending, it'll have to happen when the Rs control things. And they will never do it. And you know they'll never do it.
If D's are 100% never, but R's might give me a 0.001% hope, I know which one gets my reluctant support (but probably not my vote, because there's not any Ls involved).
Zzzzzzz....Dims and Pubes squabbling over the details again. Business as usual. It'll be settled soon at another notch up on the Big Guv ratchet.
Boehm would attack conservatives for any consequences of not authorizing unlimited spending, or for allowing it. Down the road the deficit will be entirely their fault with no mention of Democrats to be found.
Do you really not understand that the debt limit has absolutely nothing to do with new spending?
Do you really not understand that holding the debt limit hostage is the only way for Americans to force democrats to reduce spending?
Winning elections and then cutting spending when you're in power is how that's done. This is just irresponsibility.
Nixon defaulted on the debt half a century ago when he pissed all over Breton Woods and told the world that the dollar would be backed by absolutely nothing. It's not even a piece of paper anymore. It's a digital entry on a balance sheet. The US Treasury is bankrupt and there is absolutely no way that will change. Trump is the only politician out there willing to say that default is inevitable. All of this screeching about the debt ceiling is pure theater.
Not what defaulting is. Not even a little bit.
You have no idea what you are babbling on about, sparky.
If the sane people on the Republican and Democrat sides vote for this, among other things they will leave the far right and left factions of the two parties hanging out in the wind looking foolish. A handful of fringe votes in the house can only control things if the parties are about equal and every vote is made on strict party lines. It only takes a few crossover votes to isolate the extremists.
If adding two trillion dollars of debt a year is sane to you, I'd love to know just what your personal threshold is for how high it would have to get before you would start to consider it to be in insane territory.
There’s no limit for people like that.
Fuck you, cut spending.
We always thought Kevin McCarthy was a WEAK Republican. Early in his short term as Speaker, indications were he might be stronger than we thought. But, EVENTS NOW PROVE OTHERWISE. He is just another WEAK, SPINLESS, typical ESTABLISHMENT RINO! His term as Speaker should have a QUICK END!
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. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> bitecoindollar12.com
No. We pretty much knew this all along.
Shouldn’t Libertarians be raging against this too?
Fuck you, cut spending.
Being a psychopath he doesn’t understand why people are bothered by it.
My most recent pay test was for a 12-hour-per-week internet job for $9,500. For months, my sister’s friend has been making an average of 15,000, and she puts in about 20 hours every week. As soon as I gave it a try, I was shocked at how simple it was…
Do this instead——>> http://Www.pay.hiring9.Com
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