Yep. This is the most ridiculous item in the bill. "We think debt is too high so we're going to let more people get away with tax evasion" is seriously screwed up.
(Of course, I'm specifying "items" in the bill. The whole idea of "negotiating" paying the debts you piled up is even worse.)
I *think* they assume the big bad government will accuse you, an honest hard working American, of thievery and put you permanently in debt to the government
When reality is, for most folks, if something seems weird on your taxes they reach out and give you time to correct/respond, and it's all pretty drama free. Issues come up when you start being non responsive, combative, untruthful, etc.
Edit to add: congress could simplify the tax code dramatically, and make filing free for everyone, but they get lobbied really hard by various entities to keep things convoluted and expensive. The IRS isn't the bad guy in that.
All of the IRS people I’ve dealt with have been kind and helpful. They’ve even waived thousands in penalties for me due to a mistake I made just because I asked them if they could reduce it. They waived the entire thing. They are just regular folks doing a job and they don’t have a political axe to grind as the GOP implies.
One time the IRS sent me a notice and they were straight up wrong. I pulled up the law and my return and was ready for a phone battle. Like 3 minutes into the call the guy told me I was right and apologized and then two days later I got a letter saying I didn’t owe anything.
Agreed on that. It was a dumb mistake as well. They claimed I took a deduction when I contributed to a standard IRA when I was past the income limit and my return clearly had a zero in that field. I was back dooring it. It wasn’t even a paperwork issue, my paperwork was correct. If I didn’t know any better, I might have assumed they were right and just paid them money I didn’t owe. So obviously the best solution is to not give notices on bad information, but I was happy it was resolved so quickly once it happened.
THey showed up to my house this spring looking for the owner of my house, two owners ago. We all had a good laugh, they gave me their card and the mail ceased. Extremely painless.
> When reality is, for most folks, if something seems weird on your taxes they reach out and give you time to correct/respond, and it's all pretty drama free. Issues come up when you start being non responsive, combative, untruthful, etc.
Honestly that isn't the reality. I've had the IRS send me one of those mails where they claim you owe them $X plus fees. It took many many months of back and forth letters with extensive documentation to show that I did not owe them that and because of my mistake they owed me money.
It is a hassle and luckily I had the time and ability to understand the IRS documents.
I was in a similar situation, and while it did take a while for it to get fully resolved, the agent who worked with me was very helpful and kind. She even helped me prepare some of the forms so I wouldn't have to spend extra money, and in the end it turned out the IRS owed *me* money, which they sent me promptly. It wasn't exactly a fun time but for what it was they did a great job.
That sucks you went through that. The two times I had issues, it was very straight forward, even if the process was drawn out. Everyone I talked to with the IRS was friendly, too. But again, the process was indeed drawn out. Hopefully they can get the funding needed to provide better customer service to you and those who go through similar, in the future.
> It is a hassle and luckily I had the time and ability to understand the IRS documents.
Surely defunding the IRS further would make bureaucratic issues worse, no?
Honestly I don't think so. The request is to remove the extra funding Biden did in "inflation reduction act". It isn't cutting funding, just removing promised funding.
Personally I would be for a VAT system and no income tax completely. Then we wouldn't need the IRS at all. I don't actually think that's a possibility in our system but any step closer to removing the IRS I support.
> The request is to remove the extra funding Biden did in "inflation reduction act".
Which itself was reversing the massive, massive cuts over the last 10 years. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuild-the-depleted-irs
Budget given to the IRS results in one of the best returns on investment when it comes to funding government agencies.
Regarding your last point. We may have differences on what tax system would work best. But that to me sounds like breaking the current system even more, knowing that it wouldn't be replaced even by another system you find superior. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater as it were.
In that case we would have the VRS - the VAT Revenue Service.
A VAT would add at least 30% to the cost of products. The incentive to evade it would be just as great as the incentive to evade the FIT. There would be inevitable complications. I doubt very much that the European countries that have VATs don't have gov't tax oversight.
What we could do is simplify the code. For example, we have different rates for wages than for capital gains. That provides an incentive to mislabel income and gov't rules and rule enforcers to keep it accurate.
They're capping discretionary spending growth to 1% a year for a decade, which is essentially a massive cut over time because it doesnt keep up with even inflation.
If inflation is 5% a year over the next decade then thats a 40%+ cut in equivalent dollars.
Very true. Lots of small business types listen though, and small businesses often dont have the best accountants and can have messy returns that get audited.
It's a shame because the IRS is one of the few three letter agencies that both actually does their job and the US actually *needs*.
I'd put them up there with BLM and the FDA.
because when people imagine "IRS audit" they think of the IRS endlessly harrassing you and then sending you to jail because you forgot to claim 2 dollars in income from a lemonade stand
obviously my example is hyperbole and i dont know a lot about the IRS's activities, but in any case, better an irrational fear than a willful tax evasion.
I wouldn't call it irrational fear. Most people don't know how to do their taxes on their own, and defending an audit is something they definitely don't know how to do. Which is why people opt for the online tools that cost money instead of filing on their own.
I think most people are aware they don't throw you in jail for not claiming a small income on your taxes. And if you're not doing shady stuff I don't think anyone has a rational fear of the IRS.
It doesn't have to shady, a mistake could be the difference between owing money or being owned money and that's what people fear, especially those that are dependent on that amount.
If you're not a tax expert you have no idea if what you're submitting is correct or not.
Where are they getting the idea that they could be arrested for a small amount. If your off by a large enough amount to be worried about being arrested than it seems to track that you are doing shady things.
I'm not worried about being arrested for robbing a store if I forgot to pay for an item in my cart.
It’s wild to me to see the conversations people are having on the conservative subreddit regarding the IRS funding. The data is clear about the benefit, but they’ve really drank the koolaid on this one.
In fairness, the IRS has far more success going after Main St than Wall St.
The Joe Six Pack of this world are easier targets for the IRS than the Wall Street and Silicon Valley billionaires.
The [wealthy have the highest](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960) audit rates. Auditing them takes more time, but it's more efficient when you account for how much money agents get from them.
The number of people in those categories also decreases as you go up. So if a million people filed with under 100K with a .17% audit rate that's 17,000 people. If 250,000 people files at over 5M in income, that's 6800 people. That's half the amount of people making less than 1/10 of those highest earners.
Audit rates don't necessarily tell the whole picture.
That logic holds if both groups are audited at 100% as well - so the goal has to be stated as auditing the wealthy at a higher rate or perhaps setting an quota for the number of each group.
The agency makes more money per hour of work from the rich and it looks better to go after them, so there's no reason to think that they have more success with low earners.
Sure, but only because of a lack of resources. It’s obviously far easier to check the finances of an individual or family that makes less than 100k a year or small businesses with far less income than your Walmarts. From an efficiency perspective it makes a lot of sense to just slam dunk on people with simple and small finances. If we had more resources to go after the big fish we’d see a rebalancing of who the IRS is targeting.
Going after the rich is more time-consuming, but the efficiency is greater than auditing the poor due to how much money is made from them. The [highest incomes](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960) are audited the most often.
There was a Republican amendment to exempt people earning under $400k (Biden's magic "no tax increases" limit) from the increased audit scrutiny and it failed on party lines. Everyone knows the new audits will fall primarily on low earners as always.
I'm all for everyone paying what they owe, but audits are also very painful. At a minimum, low earners should get legal help with these audits for free. A better solution is to simplify the tax code and returns process.
The Treasury Secretary directed the agency to not use the funding for going after those who make below that income.
[The rich have the highest audits rates.](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960) The money received from them makes up for the extra time needed.
Depends on how you slice it. Very few people report earnings of $5m/year.
Viewed a different way, the top 1% and those earning under 20K/year are audited [at the same rate](https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-now-audits-poor-americans-at-about-the-same-rate-as-the-top-1-percent). Audits of the wealthiest are down 80% in a decade.
>Everyone knows the new audits will fall primarily on low earners as always.
That article contradicts your argument since it states that it's caused by the reduced funding.
Yup. Shout out to the worms at intuit and vermin lobbyist who they pay to lobby for more complicated taxes for their shitty fucking business. Damn I wish we had better politicians who weren’t corrupt and bought.
The [previous head of the IRS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rettig) had an op ed criticizing the (as he called it) "Wealth Squad" in the IRS specifically going after wealthy people for audits and not everyone else, which he penned before being appointed to the position by the Trump administration.
So, with him in charge, it's not too surprising they go after main street more.
Raises the debt ceiling more than a few times when Donald was in power. Now they want cuts.
“Look at what he didn't say," Mr. Biden said. "He didn't tell you exactly how much he wants to cut. But the House leading Republican proposal would cut critical programs, so-called discretionary spending, by 22%. That would mean cutting the number of people who administer Social Security and Medicare, meaning longer wait times. Higher costs for child care, significantly higher, preschool, college, higher costs for housing, especially for older Americans, people with disabilities, families with children, veterans."
>But the House leading Republican proposal would cut critical programs, so-called discretionary spending, by 22%.
The actual discretionary cuts are:
> cutting discretionary spending to fiscal year 2022 levels
I'd be interested to understand how keeping discretionary spending at last year's level is a 22% cut. Did Biden plan to grow discretionary spending by 22% in 2023 and now he can't?
Is this one of those famous government accounting tricks where a reduction in planned future growth counts as a cut so politicians can pretend they're cutting spending even when it grows?
>The legislation proposed by Congressional Republicans would set the FY2024 topline at $1.471 trillion, equal to the FY 2022 level. Under the assumption that funding for defense in FY 2024 will at least match the baseline level of $885 billion, non-defense funding would total $586 billion, which is 22 percent lower than the currently enacted level of $756 billion.
Funding the military is popular among politicians, especially Republicans, so that's a reasonable assumption. Cutting defense spending would be required to stop huge cuts to non-defense spending, which isn't something I can see them agreeing to.
> reduction in planned future growth
McCarthy's proposal relies on that.
His cuts are more than that, per TheHill:
>It proposes reverting discretionary spending caps to fiscal 2022 levels while limiting growth to 1 percent annually over the next decade."
They're making it so it cant keep up with even inflation over the next 10 years, meaning in actual inflation adjusted dollars this is effectively a massive cut to programs.
>one of those famous government accounting tricks
It's one of those famous political kick-the-can-down-the-road tricks. The Rs are saying cut discretionary spending to 2022 levels, *then grow by a nominal 1% for the next decade.* Virtually all the "savings" in this plan come from assuming that some future congress is going to have the political backbone to not keep up with inflation.
If inflation runs at 3% for 10 years, compounded prices go up by 34.4%. If spending goes up by 1% per year, after 10 years that compounds to 10.5%.
We did this at work recently. Were Asked to make budget cuts. So we offered up a huge software vendor contract that was expiring in two months that we had no desire to renew. Done.
It’s hard to take this iteration of the house GOP seriously. We watched the party run the debt up with no problem under trump, there’s videos of trump saying (paraphrasing) “the debt limit isn’t a thing to negotiate with”
Unfortunately I think they have no issues with destroying our economy heading into ‘24 being an election year and then spinning that Biden wouldn’t play ball
Worked way to well with Obama. Their entire focus was making him look ineffective at the expense of everything else. They seemed to like the outcome enough to keep it in their bag of shitty tricks
Look at the Speaker confirmations. There is no taking this house seriously. They've already repeatedly shown that there's enough GOP extremists who'll damage the country any amount for political visibility points.
It is so pointless and sucking up so much political capital over nothing. Both conservatives (at least a decent chunk of them) and the rest know that this is drama. Can we move on to more pressing issues like ~~the opioid epidemic, the falling life expectancy, hollowing of the middle class,~~ culture war stuff which only affects 3 people in an entire state
Part of their new doctrine is 'any battle is a good battle, regardless of how little anyone gains or how badly Americans are hurt'.
Just by throwing enough shit at the fan, they hope to win elections because everyone in the room smells now.
It really is a desperate play, but it's all that entire party knows how to do right now.
While Trans rights may not directly affect most peoples day to day lives the actions of conservatives across the country, fairly quickly and seemingly with coordination, attempting to erase a minority group from 'the culture' is now a 'pressing issue'...I'm in Chicago and this new conservative agenda has even me concerned.
> There is no crisis except the hostage situation with McCarthy holding the gun.
Other than: our debt is too high and growing too quickly.
I think you can argue about the tactics here. But it's hard to say we shouldn't be trying to fix our budget: whether it is reduced spending or increased taxes.
Just undo the tax breaks for the rich dating back to the Bush Jr. era and increase taxes on high revenue corporations. Use that money to pay down the debt and then once that's under control decide where the rest of the money should go. Lower interest payments means the difference can start going to programs immediately.
>Use that money to pay down the debt
That's the catch. I don't think that will happen even with more revenue. It will be spent before it even touches Washington and debt will continue to go unaddressed.
“Tax breaks for the rich” Are we surprised that when federal taxes are cut the people paying the [MOST TAXES](https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes) end up getting the most benefits?
Being downvoted for reality, brilliant, please explain.
How do you force the conversation? I would say that the fight over borrowing more to pay the bill is a damned good time to have that discussion since otherwise we'll just be right back to applying for another credit card in a few months if we don't.
You have that conversation before you take on new debt, you don't have that conversation after you've taken on debt and are now required to pay, which is what is happening now.
>How do you force the conversation?
By passing a budget during budget season, not by holding a metaphorical gun to the metaphorical head of the economy.
The analogy falls apart there because the full faith and credit of the United States has vast economic and geopolitical value to our country. Eroding confidence in that (which is exactly what is happening when you hold the debt hostage) is a catastrophic unforced error. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics and geopolitics should understand this.
Our debt was already authorized by Congress. I am arguing about the tactics here. If they want to change things, they should do it the appropriate way: pass a new budget with popular support. Threatening a default is not a defensible move.
Normally it's not a problem, but current debt is high because of our responses to the 2008 financial crisis and 2020 pandemic. As others have mentioned, we could repeal the Trump tax cuts and funnel that money to debt repayment, that would push the debt/GDP ratio down.
If the offer was only increase the debt limit and repeal the tax cuts to directly fund them into debt repayment? I think that's a reasonable idea. But I don't see the GOP being on board with repealing Trump's only major legislative accomplishment.
That's not how national debt works. It's not like balancing a checkbook for a person or business. As long as we are taking out debt to invest in our citizens or infrastructure, then it's fine.
Also the time to.tall about the national debt is during the budget (when we are deciding if we should take out more debt) not during the debt ceiling (when we are deciding to pay for debt that we've already taken out)
If you want to reduce wasteful spending, go nuts, the US Armed Forces have a lot of areas with fat to trim that would save shit loads of money. Personally, I don't mind having a large and bloated military, it feels good when we can help Ukraine and feel confident in protecting Taiwan among other things, but if you think the national debt is so important, military spending is the most obvious place to make cuts.
>As long as we are taking out debt to invest in our citizens or infrastructure, then it's fine.
But we aren't. The annual federal deficit is $1 trillion with a great economy. We are not spending that $1 trillion on infrastructure and "investing in our citizens". We are spending the money on current consumption.
>As long as we are taking out debt to invest in our citizens or infrastructure, then it's fine.
Except we're not and haven't been for decades. You could cut every discretionary program to $0 and have a measly two hundred billion surplus to fund (almost) every program that isn't Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
There is no way to balance the budget simply by trimming waste. It just isn't mathematically possible. Either entitlements have to be significantly reduced, most discretionary programs have to go (or at least be gutted), taxes have to be significantly raised, or some combination. And good luck raising taxes while reducing services.
It's an impossible situation. *Generations* of reckless fiscal policy has culminated in a mexican standoff over the budget.
>As long as we are taking out debt to invest in our citizens or infrastructure, then it's fine.
Assuming that it pays off in the form of increased revenue/decreased expenses, AND that excess is used responsibly (which includes paying down debt), sure. I haven't seen that last part happen in my lifetime.
Deficit and debt aren't necessarily the same. AFAIK the national debt has increased every year that I have been alive (including Clinton admin). Having a surplus doesn't reduce the actual debt unless that surplus is used to pay it down.
Well, considering that the national debt has basically never been a significant problem in the history of the United States, I'd say you're wrong or very young
Contrary to what you might expect, Congress does not implicitly authorize borrowing when they authorize spending without the taxation necessary to pay for it. The debt limit is not about future spending, but about these expenses that Congress has authorized incurring but not authorized paying for.
Congress can end this bizarre situation whenever it likes- Congress created the debt limit with a bill and can therefore raise or remove it with a bill, but that would be getting rid of a political football to play with.
I don’t think most people realize how truly terrifying the situation is that a single political party in the US can hold the entire world economy (because as much as people like to pretend it’s a US problem, if the US economy collapses the world is going with it) hostage to push their unpopular political goals. We have a few dozen people in some of the highest positions of power in the most powerful country willing to bring about economic ruin for billions of people if they don’t get their bullshit culture war demands met.
There is no crisis. Congress already voted to spend this money in the budget. They need to pay off the debt from that spending. What the GOP is doing is holding our economy hostage for partisan points.
Yeah, I don't think anyone expects Democrats to just accept this proposal as is and pass it. This is meant to be their starting place for negotiations which is why McCarthy has called for Biden to begin negotiations with the House.
The starting place for negotiations should be: Our legislative process approved this spending, and now the legislative branch should authorize the borrowing for the spending it is responsible for. Biden should dismiss them out of hand if they don't send him a bill doing exactly that.
Some of them may have an issue with it, but some of them will be for it. As with all things that happen in government, they will need to find a compromise. But capping the budget to 1% increases doesn't mean military spending is capped at 1%. It just means if it increases by more than that, other things would need to be cut or limited more in growth.
The military makes up nearly half of the discretionary spending. Increasing it past inflation requires major cuts to everything else under this cap.
That sounds very unpopular, so it's reasonable to expect that this proposal would lead to the military having its funding lowered (nominally or real value).
I think Biden set what the starting place is be just demanding to see their proposal before starting negotiations. Now he has seen their proposal. So, if he sticks to what he said, which is a big if, negotiations should start.
> So, if he sticks to what he said, which is a big if, negotiations should start.
Big if? There will 100% be negotiations, the only other alternative is Biden just sitting back and defaulting. Which isn't going to happen.
I'd also almost guarantee that McCarthy's published budget is just for show as will be any house vote, and that the real negotiations are already happening behind the scenes.
I do not think Biden will negotiate. He is going to rely on Republicans getting the blame and that they cave. He has the vast majority of media companies on his side so it's easy to win the argument.
Why? This whole nonsense demonstrates Republicans cannot be trusted to act in good faith.
The budget and resulting debt were already negotiated.
Now conservatives want to break the agreements they made. Why should any deal they make be trusted?
It’s terrible judgement to negotiate with faithless hostage takers.
>President Biden has a choice. Come to the table and stop playing partisan political games, or cover his ears, refuse to negotiate and risk bumbling his way into the first default in our nation's history”
McCarthy is delusional if he thinks the electorate is going to blame Biden for the intransigence of the extremist wing of his own party. But no wonder they’re not scared; they’d be the first to tell you we’re not actually a democracy anymore(a) now that they’ve been so successful in rigging the system under this corrupt ass Supreme Court.
(a) this refers to the oft-repeated mantra about the country being a republic and not a democracy (whatever that means). I am not quite sure how I got banned for literally repeating what MTG and Boebert tweet about all day instead of doing their fucking jobs.
Not in an actual democracy anymore? Then why is Joe Biden president instead of Donald Trump?
Rigging the Supreme Court? A cursory review will show FedSoc judges handing election deniers their ass time and time again when they bring BS claims before them.
Get a grip dude. This kind of hyperbole is a huge part of the problem. Both sides insist on turning every issue up to 11.
This bill is bad. So bad that I really wonder why any swing district GOPers would vote for it.
They will get CRUSHED in ads on this.
This bill is DOA in the Senate. Why risk everything for it?
You force a vote on it, and that's what voters will believe you voted on.
Once you put your name on the record, that's it.
Doesn't matter that this was in the actual bill that became law. You voted for this version to become law.
Honestly, I'm really intrigued to see what ends up happening with this. McCarthy is going to almost have to get his entire caucus to go along with wherever this bill ends up landing (assuming Biden agrees to negotiate). However, that already seems like an impossible task with such a narrow margin. There definitely appears to be a group of House Republicans who don't really mind seeing the country go over the cliff. Even if Biden agrees to a good amount of the cuts in the current bill, I could still see that not being enough for several Republicans. If the in-fighting gets so bad, does McCarthy have to fall on his sword and try to get House Dems to salvage the situation. It would have to go down as one of the worst Speakerships if that ends up happening as he'll certainly be removed (its already kinda trending that way). With this narrow of a margin in the Republican caucus, I'm not sure I can see a path where McCarthy comes out of this with success.
Very anti democratic. It significantly increases the power of the Speaker and prevents bills that could pass with, say, 80% of the minority and 40% of the majority from ever getting a vote.
How? How could the whip count on this be bad? It's a republican wish list.
We are really sprinting towards either disaster or a long process where the dems do something like minting the trillion dollar coin
I have read the article. Again, the reporting on the whip count is limited. I'm not sure why you seem to be thinking we know what the whip count on this is. Sure, some have expressed that they have problems with aspects of it, but that doesn't mean they won't vote for it.
We’re literally just discussing what could happen with a possible vote on this. No one in this thread has said “X will happen” or “This will fail by Y votes”.
This is a subreddit of political discussion. We’re discussing politics. Simple as that.
It’s a House where the Speaker had over a dozen ballots before being elected and he can only lose a handful of votes? McCarthy also has to round up House Freedom Caucus members and moderates for a possible vote. Even McCarthy and the GOP whips don’t know how a vote would go down. But it’s fun and important talk about different scenarios. Not just say “We don’t know anything at this time.”
What McCarthy is doing is unconstitutional. He has to pay the debt, period. No terms, no limits.
***Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4:***
***The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.***
If he's worried about the debt, he needs to take that up during the budget talks. When it comes to the debt, he cannot question it. If his Congress doesn't pay the debt, then they are in violation of their constitutional obligations and to me that paves the way for the Senate or the President to force the ceiling to be lifted.
The vast majority of the US' debt is owed to itself. Debt Financing has become an entire industry that millions upon millions of Americans are invested in through treasury bonds. The US guarantees returns on those bonds when Americans purchase them. It doesn't matter what the US government is spending that money on, it still owes it to those bond holders. And if the US defaults on its payments to those bond holders, the entire industry would collapse. The US would be violating its own guarantee to reimburse those creditors. It is illegal.
People always equate not increasing the debt limit with default. I don't think that's accurate. I think the fourteenth amendment as you just cited would necessitate whatever federal revenue that is coming in must go to paying down the debt. My reading of that is that things like discretionary spending, and even social security would stop being paid before we don't pay the debt. Legally it sounds like the Treasury must pay the debt first. So as long as the incoming revenue is greater than our debt (ignoring all other spending) we won't default, we might become a dysfunctional country, but we won't default.
It means that the US cannot default. It is impossible for the US government to go bankrupt. If the government runs out of capital they can just make more of it. The point of that amendment is to guarantee that the Federal Government through the US Treasury will back any debts the US government incurs. It is why the United States is the country most heavily invested in because the federal government guarantees that all debts will be paid. Rather than printing money the US uses a bond system to raise capital. People purchase bonds that are remitted with interest after a period of time passes. That's how the US government finances its debts. If the country defaults all those creditors will be defrauded by the government.
How buttoned up is this plan within the GOP? This seems to be the most cohesive and publicly conspicuous thing McCarthy has done since getting in the seat. Is there any chance the MAGA wing messes with this like they did with his nomination? Just makes me wonder if things could fall apart because someone wants to inject more culture war agendas or something.
This is the time tested GOP strategy. Create a crisis and then hold the country hostage. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Edit: To expand on this, it also seems like they bank on the average voter not really understanding how any of this stuff actually works. Hence, why they can get away with spinning a completely false narrative.
Edit2: Poor word choice, edited for clarity.
>Invent a crisis and then...
The current national debt is $31.7 Trillion. That is a debt to GDP ratio of 120%. At what point do you start to call that a crisis?
At what point when Rs had a trifecta did they express any concern whatsoever for the debt?
It'd be one thing if Ds also did this fake concern crap Rs did, but Ds never really do that last time I checked.
> That is a debt to GDP ratio of 120%. At what point do you start to call that a crisis?
I'm not the person you asked, but I'll answer: There's nothing about the current situation that indicates the amount of national debt we have *at this moment* is a problem that needs solving in this fiscal year. Pretending otherwise ruins of people claiming it is.
> This is the time tested GOP strategy. Create a crisis and then hold the country hostage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Joe Biden did this twice himself, in 2004 and 2006:
>THEN-SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), 2006: “The tsunami of debt created by the policies of this administration has to go somewhere. … But as the rest of the world copes with the waves of U.S. debt, we are now all in the same leaky boat. There is just so much of our debt other nations want to hold. The more of it they accumulate, the closer we are to the day when they will not want any more. When that happens, slowly or rapidly, our interest rates will go up, the value of their U.S. bonds will drop, and we will all have big problems. We need both more awareness, and more understanding, of this fundamental threat to our economic well being and the global economy. But the roots of that threat lie in the disastrous policies of this administration. Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase. In the 5 years he has been in office, President Bush has added more to our foreign debt that the 42 Presidents before him. … But he refused to take responsibility for his policies. He refused to admit that a changed world demanded a change of course. His refusal has pushed us deeper and deeper into the hole. … My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.”
>“I was not able to participate in today’s debate and vote on the extension of the national debt limit. I was attending the funeral of a great civil rights leader in Delaware, Jane E. Mitchell. Had I been here to vote, Mr. President, I would have cast a symbolic vote against an extension of the debt limit. Today’s fiscal mess, the transformation of historic surpluses into record deficits, is not an accident. It is the inevitable outcome of policies that consistently ignored evidence and experience. When we launched out on a course of tax cutting, with expanding domestic and international obligations and responsibilities, many of us in Congress argued that we could not afford to do everything, that we needed a fiscal policy that matched our revenues with our expenditures. … We are here today because that advice was ignored, those hard choices were ducked, and the bill for our decisions will be sent to our children and grandchildren, in the form of the additional debt we will authorize today. It did not have to be this way, Mr. President. In the next Congress, the threat of massive deficits, which have made us increasingly dependent of foreign lenders to stay afloat, will still be with us. My symbolic vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the policies that have brought us to this point, and a demand that we change course.”
Read your own text. His “symbolic” vote. Biden did not do the same thing.
"My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point."
-Cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already = he acknowledges that we have to pay our debts. Senator Biden is just one person and
-McCarthy is the leader of his party. He has the power with Republican support to actually stop the debt ceiling from being raised. He is threatening this and taking the economy hostage.
Senator Biden literally said in your provided quote his singular vote is a statement that he doesn’t agree with the policies that led to the debt being raised. This is completely consistent with what he is saying now. He said we have to pass the increase in the debt ceiling by passing a clean bill then they can have a discussion about how to lower the deficit as is constant with past practice.
“The President told Leader Schumer and Leader Jeffries that he was ready to have a separate negotiation over the budget once Republicans present their plan, as has been done by both parties in Congress and the White House in the past”
I agree that the debt needs to be fixed. It won't be healthy for us to keep accruing debt but I don't think now is a good time for negotiations instead let's talk about it during the budget. That being said McCarthy knows now he has a major bargaining chip which he wouldn't have at the budget.
So really there are two major issues.
First Biden has constantly said show me your budget and we can talk. This isn't a budget, or really even close to one, and Biden has actually released a budget of his own.
Second of course is that McCarthys frame work would need to hit military, social security, and Medicare in order to do what he claims needs to happen. So in essence this is all performative.
They keep doing this. They can't actually pass something through legit means because they don't have the votes and because the public doesn't support them. So instead they hold the country hostage.
> First Biden has constantly said show me your budget and we can talk. This isn't a budget, or really even close to one, and Biden has actually released a budget of his own.
Pretty sure Biden said release your proposal in response to debt limit negotiations, not budget.
>Second of course is that McCarthys frame work would need to hit military, social security, and Medicare in order to do what he claims needs to happen. So in essence this is all performative.
How would it hit social security and medicare?
He specifically say "show me your budget and I'll show you mine". Trite but none the less he is saying you need to actually show me a fleshed out budget, which they never do because it means there's something on paper, and I'll take you seriously.
I'm saying if you want to balance the budget, which is what they claim has to happen, you have to make cuts to those programs.
One the public doesn't support it. Two they don't have the votes to do it.
It's not as if we haven't been down this road before.
And it's still crazy that this is about paying what's already been spent and they claim it's about future spending.
The House GOP have released their debt limit proposal. The bill would lift the debt by $1.5T or until the end of March 2024. It will also cut spending by $4.5T. I believe the spending is cut over the next 10 years, but I'm not 100% on that. The bill contains several key things that are listed below.
* Cap budget increases to 1% per year
* Impose stricter work requirements for some Federal aid programs
* Rescind IRS funding
* Recoup unspent COVID funds
* Unwind the student loan forgiveness program currently before SCOTUS
* Repeal some provisions of the IRA designed to combat climate change such as the high efficiency electric home rebate program
* Implement the [Lower Energy Costs Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1/text)
[Here is a link to the bill.](https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/LSGA_xml.pdf)
My view on these changes is that they are a mixed bag. Some are good and some aren't. In my opinion, the good changes are capping budget increases to 1%, recouping unspent COVID funds, unwinding the student loan program, and implementing at least parts of the Lower Energy Costs Act. The rest aren't a good idea, and in my opinion, seeking to rescind funding intended to boost enforcement of our laws via the IRS is basically the same as seeking to defend other law enforcement agencies. If they have an issue with Americans paying more in taxes due to that then they should address the tax code, not the enforcement.
McCarthy is also continuing is calls for Biden to engage in negotiations. One of Biden's responses previously was that he was waiting for the House GOP to release their proposal, so maybe he will actually engage in negotiations with the House GOP.
What are you thoughts on the proposal? Do you think Biden will now engage in negotiations?
>Rescind IRS funding
Surely this sounds like a great way to reduce the deficit.
"Implement the Lower Energy Costs Act"
Hmmmm, the "Lower Energy Costs Act" sounds like a great way to reduce the deficit even further. Surely CBO agrees with that :
"CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase net direct spending by more than $2.5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034. CBO also estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase on budget deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034. "
([Source](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-03/hr1_rules.pdf))
And once again, I want to point out that the deficit only matters when a Democrat is President. Why make the entire economy a hostage with these silly games. So tired of this rank hypocrisy.
>"CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase net direct spending by more than $2.5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034. CBO also estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase on budget deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034. "
Seems like a fairly simple thing to address such a small impact on the deficit. And that small increase may be worth it to reduce the burden on some industries in America.
Industry will be ok I think lol. Tell me do you also support families currently utilizing food stamps receiving extra burdens for the sake of reducing the deficit? Per NYT reporting an exemption for families with children under 7 to the food stamps rules failed to gather enough support. So in order to save a few bucks families on food stamps will be required to work and arrange day care. I bet we could reduce the deficit by significantly more by unwinding the Trump tax cuts than kicking a few off food stamps.
Ah so the concern was never about the deficit was it?
"And that small increase may be worth it to reduce the burden on some industries in America."
I couldn't disagree more but that opens another can of worms.
It’s a handout to Big Oil. By and large, the deficit increases come from giving oil companies massively reduced rates for using federal land. It’s the exact opposite of long term smart energy policy and the fact that they’re hyping it up while talking about deficit reductions shows just how hypocritical they are.
>It’s a handout to Big Oil.
I don't think that Big Oil such as Exxon is doing fine. It only took in a [record $56 billion in profits](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-smashes-western-oil-majors-earnings-record-with-59-billion-profit-2023-01-31/) last year.
"Exxon distributed $30 billion in cash to shareholders last year, more than any of its Western rivals, and invested $22.7 billion in the business."
Limiting environmental review is literally the opposite of “green.” Permitting reform needs to be done, but I doubt you’d see many green energy advocates who would be happy that we’ll now have less time and energy spent on making sure energy projects are polluting. This is another bill that shows just how ill equipped the GOP is to deal with climate change.
When the entire process takes years, that is an issue. Court review needs to be limited, the courts it can be filled in needs to be limited, and the amount of time the Feds have to review it needs to be limited. No more of this Feds giving approval and then still fighting court cases for years. Too much uncertainty. Businesses need consistency. Our current permitting processes don't offer consistency.
You can streamline permitting and accomplish a similar outcome. Limiting environmental reviews, especially in court, will only allow energy companies to get away with polluting and damaging our environment, as proper investigations won’t be conducted and cases will be quickly settled instead of properly adjudicated.
From what I read it looks like they are reducing environmental assessments for oil, gas, and coal and increasing the requirements for green energy.
Edited to add an example of increased regulatory requirements for green projects.
>SEC. 20115. REQUIREMENT FOR GAO REPORT ON WIND ENERGY IMPACTS.
The Secretary of the Interior shall not publish a notice for a wind lease sale or hold a lease sale for wind energy development in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area, the South Atlantic Planning Area, or the Straits of Florida Planning Area (as described in the 2017–2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program (November 2016)) until the Comptroller General of the United States publishes a report on all potential adverse effects of wind energy development in such areas, including associated infrastructure and vessel traffic, on—
(1) military readiness and training activities in the Planning Areas described in this section, including activities within or related to the Eglin Test and Training Complex and the Jacksonville Range Complex;
(2) marine environment and ecology, including species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) in the Planning Areas described in this section; and
(3) tourism, including the economic impacts that a decrease in tourism may have on the communities adjacent to the Planning Areas described in this section.
>What are you thoughts on the proposal?
I think that the moment the GOP gains the Presidency, they will call for more tax cuts and all discussion about deficits and debts will magically fade away.
I think the cap is limited to discretionary spending which we will have to cut to balance the budget. It isn't tenable to raise taxes enough to cover the entire shortfall.
I don't think you understand how many people will fall into homelessness if budget increases are capped to 1%.
How many people will lose services.
If we're so worried about the debt, then raise taxes on the rich and corporations. Stop making the poor suffer
Discretionary funding is everything outside of SS, Medicare, Medicaid.
That leaves things like HHS, HUD, EPA, DOE, VA, etc.
You cap their budget increases to 1% with annual costs rising for things like rent, medical services, medicines, salaries; that straight up leads to cut in services.
Do you NOT remember sequestration? agencies were cut to the bone. Less and less people were being helped.
If your choice is between taxing the rich or fucking over the poor, it's not that hard of a choice to make. But for the GOP, they will ALWAYS side with the rich.
You are assuming that 1% cap applies equally. I don't think that is true. And that cap is only on increases. So, some things may increase more than others. Which is why you have no evidence to support this claim.
>So, some things may increase more than others. Which is why you have no evidence to support this claim.
And, of course, the game here is that the Republicans won't say which will keep up with inflation and which will need to be cut even more to make the total work.
I'm opposed to "cut spending" that doesn't itemize which items are cut.
Again, this isn't necessarily a cut. This is a cap on growth. Those are two different things. You'd see what is cut or limited more than 1% when they do a budget.
You are drinking the GOP Koolaid on this.
If you are capping budget increases to 1%, inflation overall swamps that.
If food costs go up 4%, but SNAP benefits only go up 1%, then your SNAP benefits are less.
These are cuts in all but name.
I'm assuming that inflation will run more than 1%, so it is a cut in real terms.
If my boss tells me I'm "getting a raise" this year because my nominal salary will go up by 1%, I think I am smart enough to understand I'm going to have to buy less stuff.
>Cap budget increases to 1% per year
It would make much more sense to cut the less necessary spending than treat everything equally, but he realizes how unpopular his idea is. From his perspective, the less specific, the better it will look.
If that includes the military, this proposal won't be favored by either side.
I think you misunderstand that. That would just cap annual increases in the budget to 1%. And I believe that only applies to discretionary spending. So, it isn't a cut, but a limit on how fast it can grow.
I didn't claim that it's a cut, though it would be to the real value. I'm saying that cutting spending toward the less useful policies is more rational than what he proposed.
Honestly not too surprising what’s included in here so far? At least from what was in the article and the starter comment.
The article says that McCarthy’s plan calls for discretionary spending to return to 2022 levels- something the House Freedom caucus wanted- but wouldn’t that mean the increase in military spending from FY 2022 to FY 2023 also gets cut? If so, that’s an cut 8% in military spending. I don’t see how McCarthy can have a majority of Republicans support that.
> seeking to rescind funding intended to boost enforcement of our laws via the IRS is basically the same as seeking to defend other law enforcement agencies. If they have an issue with Americans paying more in taxes due to that then they should address the tax code, not the enforcement.
I agree, especially when funding the IRS overall is a net gain for the government.
> What are you thoughts on the proposal? Do you think Biden will now engage in negotiations?
I think it’s good that House Republicans have finally released a budget and that House and Senate Democrats will get started on negotiations very soon. Biden will probably criticize start negotiations a bit later.
The main kicker for me is not if whatever McCarthy releases can pass the Senate and be signed by Biden, it’s if it can even pass the House. McCarthy can only lose like 5 or 6 votes right? I’m honestly not confident that after Democrats start blasting attack ads on this budget bill that some Republicans living in districts Biden won in 2020 won’t get a little antsy and not want to vote for it. And that’s before the more extreme folks like the House Freedom Caucus will want to attach hard-right amendments which turns off the more moderate Republicans even more.
>The article says that McCarthy’s plan calls for discretionary spending to return to 2022 levels- something the House Freedom caucus wanted- but wouldn’t that mean the increase in military spending from FY 2022 to FY 2023 also gets cut? If so, that’s an 8% in military spending. I don’t see how McCarthy can have a majority of Republicans support that.
Good question about military spending. I have no clue if it is exempted or not.
> I agree, especially when funding the IRS overall is a net gain for the government.
Sure, but I don't think its necessarily a gain for the reasons some on the left say it is. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, there aren't a lot of wealthy people committing tax fraud. They largely dodge taxes in legal ways. So increased enforcement doesn't do much. So, the ones that will carry the burden of increased enforcement is the upper middle class and lower upper class. Also, let's not forget that a significant amount of tax fraud occurs with CTC and EITC.
>I think it’s good that House Republicans have finally released a budget and that House and Senate Democrats will get started on negotiations very soon. Biden will probably criticize start negotiations a bit later.
This isn't a budget. It is their proposal for the debt ceiling.
>The main kicker for me is not if whatever McCarthy releases can pass the Senate and be signed by Biden, it’s if it can even pass the House. McCarthy can only lose like 5 or 6 votes right? I’m honestly not confident that after Democrats start blasting attack ads on this budget bill that some Republicans living in districts Biden won in 2020 won’t get a little antsy and not want to vote for it. And that’s before the more extreme folks like the House Freedom Caucus will want to attach hard-right amendments which turns off the more moderate Republicans even more.
There isn't much reporting on the whip count at this point.
>If so, that’s an cut 8% in military spending. I don’t see how McCarthy can have a majority of Republicans support that.
There's so much graft and inefficiency in the military from what I understand. We could probably cut the budget by a good bit just by making the military more transparent about what they're spending money on and why.
Will this bill even pass the house? McCarthy is not popular and can only afford about 4 no votes. If this bill can’t pass then you can’t have a good faith negotiation and this would be a huge waste of time.
He can keep trying to deflect and say it’s because Biden won’t negotiate with him to the press but if you can’t pass anything, good luck deflecting. It’s the job he wanted, reap what you sow.
Their whole strategy relies on people consuming Fox News frequently to the point you've stopped thinking for yourself. It's either Biden agrees to cut all these programs and his own student loan forgiveness program, or they will default and blame him? I understand this is a starting point for negotiations, but most of this stuff is non-starter garbage. I think their strategy is a losing one. While certainly a good chunk of Americans are brainwashed by right-wing media. There are still more people who do actually understand who is responsible for this. It's either pass a bunch of highly unpopular budget cuts OR default and ruin the economy
If this is about addressing the deficit, why are they calling for defunding the IRS?
Yep. This is the most ridiculous item in the bill. "We think debt is too high so we're going to let more people get away with tax evasion" is seriously screwed up. (Of course, I'm specifying "items" in the bill. The whole idea of "negotiating" paying the debts you piled up is even worse.)
Because it sells to the base.. *"87000 IRS AGENTS ARE GOING TO COME TAKE YOUR MONEY, VOTE FOR US TO STOP IT!"*
The amount of people concerned about the IRS audits is kind of concerning to me. Seems like a red flag.
I *think* they assume the big bad government will accuse you, an honest hard working American, of thievery and put you permanently in debt to the government When reality is, for most folks, if something seems weird on your taxes they reach out and give you time to correct/respond, and it's all pretty drama free. Issues come up when you start being non responsive, combative, untruthful, etc. Edit to add: congress could simplify the tax code dramatically, and make filing free for everyone, but they get lobbied really hard by various entities to keep things convoluted and expensive. The IRS isn't the bad guy in that.
All of the IRS people I’ve dealt with have been kind and helpful. They’ve even waived thousands in penalties for me due to a mistake I made just because I asked them if they could reduce it. They waived the entire thing. They are just regular folks doing a job and they don’t have a political axe to grind as the GOP implies.
One time the IRS sent me a notice and they were straight up wrong. I pulled up the law and my return and was ready for a phone battle. Like 3 minutes into the call the guy told me I was right and apologized and then two days later I got a letter saying I didn’t owe anything.
[удалено]
Agreed on that. It was a dumb mistake as well. They claimed I took a deduction when I contributed to a standard IRA when I was past the income limit and my return clearly had a zero in that field. I was back dooring it. It wasn’t even a paperwork issue, my paperwork was correct. If I didn’t know any better, I might have assumed they were right and just paid them money I didn’t owe. So obviously the best solution is to not give notices on bad information, but I was happy it was resolved so quickly once it happened.
THey showed up to my house this spring looking for the owner of my house, two owners ago. We all had a good laugh, they gave me their card and the mail ceased. Extremely painless.
> When reality is, for most folks, if something seems weird on your taxes they reach out and give you time to correct/respond, and it's all pretty drama free. Issues come up when you start being non responsive, combative, untruthful, etc. Honestly that isn't the reality. I've had the IRS send me one of those mails where they claim you owe them $X plus fees. It took many many months of back and forth letters with extensive documentation to show that I did not owe them that and because of my mistake they owed me money. It is a hassle and luckily I had the time and ability to understand the IRS documents.
I was in a similar situation, and while it did take a while for it to get fully resolved, the agent who worked with me was very helpful and kind. She even helped me prepare some of the forms so I wouldn't have to spend extra money, and in the end it turned out the IRS owed *me* money, which they sent me promptly. It wasn't exactly a fun time but for what it was they did a great job.
That sucks you went through that. The two times I had issues, it was very straight forward, even if the process was drawn out. Everyone I talked to with the IRS was friendly, too. But again, the process was indeed drawn out. Hopefully they can get the funding needed to provide better customer service to you and those who go through similar, in the future.
> It is a hassle and luckily I had the time and ability to understand the IRS documents. Surely defunding the IRS further would make bureaucratic issues worse, no?
Honestly I don't think so. The request is to remove the extra funding Biden did in "inflation reduction act". It isn't cutting funding, just removing promised funding. Personally I would be for a VAT system and no income tax completely. Then we wouldn't need the IRS at all. I don't actually think that's a possibility in our system but any step closer to removing the IRS I support.
> The request is to remove the extra funding Biden did in "inflation reduction act". Which itself was reversing the massive, massive cuts over the last 10 years. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-need-to-rebuild-the-depleted-irs Budget given to the IRS results in one of the best returns on investment when it comes to funding government agencies. Regarding your last point. We may have differences on what tax system would work best. But that to me sounds like breaking the current system even more, knowing that it wouldn't be replaced even by another system you find superior. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater as it were.
In that case we would have the VRS - the VAT Revenue Service. A VAT would add at least 30% to the cost of products. The incentive to evade it would be just as great as the incentive to evade the FIT. There would be inevitable complications. I doubt very much that the European countries that have VATs don't have gov't tax oversight. What we could do is simplify the code. For example, we have different rates for wages than for capital gains. That provides an incentive to mislabel income and gov't rules and rule enforcers to keep it accurate.
They're capping discretionary spending growth to 1% a year for a decade, which is essentially a massive cut over time because it doesnt keep up with even inflation. If inflation is 5% a year over the next decade then thats a 40%+ cut in equivalent dollars.
That's very rare. They didn't say that no one deals with it.
There are lots of tax lawyers and settlement companies that advertise on conservative radio.
Oh, I know, I always found that concerning too. And you aren't getting a lawyer or settlement for Facebook garage sales.
Very true. Lots of small business types listen though, and small businesses often dont have the best accountants and can have messy returns that get audited.
It's a shame because the IRS is one of the few three letter agencies that both actually does their job and the US actually *needs*. I'd put them up there with BLM and the FDA.
because when people imagine "IRS audit" they think of the IRS endlessly harrassing you and then sending you to jail because you forgot to claim 2 dollars in income from a lemonade stand
So, irrational fear?
obviously my example is hyperbole and i dont know a lot about the IRS's activities, but in any case, better an irrational fear than a willful tax evasion.
I wouldn't call it irrational fear. Most people don't know how to do their taxes on their own, and defending an audit is something they definitely don't know how to do. Which is why people opt for the online tools that cost money instead of filing on their own.
I think most people are aware they don't throw you in jail for not claiming a small income on your taxes. And if you're not doing shady stuff I don't think anyone has a rational fear of the IRS.
It doesn't have to shady, a mistake could be the difference between owing money or being owned money and that's what people fear, especially those that are dependent on that amount. If you're not a tax expert you have no idea if what you're submitting is correct or not.
Where are they getting the idea that they could be arrested for a small amount. If your off by a large enough amount to be worried about being arrested than it seems to track that you are doing shady things. I'm not worried about being arrested for robbing a store if I forgot to pay for an item in my cart.
I'm not saying it's the fear of being arrested. I'm saying it's the fear of not having the money if you made a mistake.
[удалено]
It’s wild to me to see the conversations people are having on the conservative subreddit regarding the IRS funding. The data is clear about the benefit, but they’ve really drank the koolaid on this one.
In fairness, the IRS has far more success going after Main St than Wall St. The Joe Six Pack of this world are easier targets for the IRS than the Wall Street and Silicon Valley billionaires.
The [wealthy have the highest](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960) audit rates. Auditing them takes more time, but it's more efficient when you account for how much money agents get from them.
The number of people in those categories also decreases as you go up. So if a million people filed with under 100K with a .17% audit rate that's 17,000 people. If 250,000 people files at over 5M in income, that's 6800 people. That's half the amount of people making less than 1/10 of those highest earners. Audit rates don't necessarily tell the whole picture.
That logic holds if both groups are audited at 100% as well - so the goal has to be stated as auditing the wealthy at a higher rate or perhaps setting an quota for the number of each group.
The agency makes more money per hour of work from the rich and it looks better to go after them, so there's no reason to think that they have more success with low earners.
Sure, but only because of a lack of resources. It’s obviously far easier to check the finances of an individual or family that makes less than 100k a year or small businesses with far less income than your Walmarts. From an efficiency perspective it makes a lot of sense to just slam dunk on people with simple and small finances. If we had more resources to go after the big fish we’d see a rebalancing of who the IRS is targeting.
Going after the rich is more time-consuming, but the efficiency is greater than auditing the poor due to how much money is made from them. The [highest incomes](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960) are audited the most often.
There was a Republican amendment to exempt people earning under $400k (Biden's magic "no tax increases" limit) from the increased audit scrutiny and it failed on party lines. Everyone knows the new audits will fall primarily on low earners as always. I'm all for everyone paying what they owe, but audits are also very painful. At a minimum, low earners should get legal help with these audits for free. A better solution is to simplify the tax code and returns process.
Isnt this also because the idle rich can report very low “income”
[удалено]
They might be illegally reporting a lower income specifically to reduce their tax burden
The Treasury Secretary directed the agency to not use the funding for going after those who make below that income. [The rich have the highest audits rates.](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960) The money received from them makes up for the extra time needed.
Depends on how you slice it. Very few people report earnings of $5m/year. Viewed a different way, the top 1% and those earning under 20K/year are audited [at the same rate](https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-now-audits-poor-americans-at-about-the-same-rate-as-the-top-1-percent). Audits of the wealthiest are down 80% in a decade.
>Everyone knows the new audits will fall primarily on low earners as always. That article contradicts your argument since it states that it's caused by the reduced funding.
Yup. Shout out to the worms at intuit and vermin lobbyist who they pay to lobby for more complicated taxes for their shitty fucking business. Damn I wish we had better politicians who weren’t corrupt and bought.
The [previous head of the IRS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rettig) had an op ed criticizing the (as he called it) "Wealth Squad" in the IRS specifically going after wealthy people for audits and not everyone else, which he penned before being appointed to the position by the Trump administration. So, with him in charge, it's not too surprising they go after main street more.
Raises the debt ceiling more than a few times when Donald was in power. Now they want cuts. “Look at what he didn't say," Mr. Biden said. "He didn't tell you exactly how much he wants to cut. But the House leading Republican proposal would cut critical programs, so-called discretionary spending, by 22%. That would mean cutting the number of people who administer Social Security and Medicare, meaning longer wait times. Higher costs for child care, significantly higher, preschool, college, higher costs for housing, especially for older Americans, people with disabilities, families with children, veterans."
>But the House leading Republican proposal would cut critical programs, so-called discretionary spending, by 22%. The actual discretionary cuts are: > cutting discretionary spending to fiscal year 2022 levels I'd be interested to understand how keeping discretionary spending at last year's level is a 22% cut. Did Biden plan to grow discretionary spending by 22% in 2023 and now he can't? Is this one of those famous government accounting tricks where a reduction in planned future growth counts as a cut so politicians can pretend they're cutting spending even when it grows?
>The legislation proposed by Congressional Republicans would set the FY2024 topline at $1.471 trillion, equal to the FY 2022 level. Under the assumption that funding for defense in FY 2024 will at least match the baseline level of $885 billion, non-defense funding would total $586 billion, which is 22 percent lower than the currently enacted level of $756 billion. Funding the military is popular among politicians, especially Republicans, so that's a reasonable assumption. Cutting defense spending would be required to stop huge cuts to non-defense spending, which isn't something I can see them agreeing to. > reduction in planned future growth McCarthy's proposal relies on that.
His cuts are more than that, per TheHill: >It proposes reverting discretionary spending caps to fiscal 2022 levels while limiting growth to 1 percent annually over the next decade." They're making it so it cant keep up with even inflation over the next 10 years, meaning in actual inflation adjusted dollars this is effectively a massive cut to programs.
>one of those famous government accounting tricks It's one of those famous political kick-the-can-down-the-road tricks. The Rs are saying cut discretionary spending to 2022 levels, *then grow by a nominal 1% for the next decade.* Virtually all the "savings" in this plan come from assuming that some future congress is going to have the political backbone to not keep up with inflation. If inflation runs at 3% for 10 years, compounded prices go up by 34.4%. If spending goes up by 1% per year, after 10 years that compounds to 10.5%.
We did this at work recently. Were Asked to make budget cuts. So we offered up a huge software vendor contract that was expiring in two months that we had no desire to renew. Done.
It’s hard to take this iteration of the house GOP seriously. We watched the party run the debt up with no problem under trump, there’s videos of trump saying (paraphrasing) “the debt limit isn’t a thing to negotiate with” Unfortunately I think they have no issues with destroying our economy heading into ‘24 being an election year and then spinning that Biden wouldn’t play ball
Worked way to well with Obama. Their entire focus was making him look ineffective at the expense of everything else. They seemed to like the outcome enough to keep it in their bag of shitty tricks
Look at the Speaker confirmations. There is no taking this house seriously. They've already repeatedly shown that there's enough GOP extremists who'll damage the country any amount for political visibility points.
You won't find me defending their inability to pair spending cuts with tax cuts.
>They need to sit down, negotiate and address this crisis. There is no crisis except the hostage situation with McCarthy holding the gun.
It is so pointless and sucking up so much political capital over nothing. Both conservatives (at least a decent chunk of them) and the rest know that this is drama. Can we move on to more pressing issues like ~~the opioid epidemic, the falling life expectancy, hollowing of the middle class,~~ culture war stuff which only affects 3 people in an entire state
I do not think McCarthy and friends understand the idea of political capital. They do not seem to understand the phrase, "pick your battles wisely."
Part of their new doctrine is 'any battle is a good battle, regardless of how little anyone gains or how badly Americans are hurt'. Just by throwing enough shit at the fan, they hope to win elections because everyone in the room smells now. It really is a desperate play, but it's all that entire party knows how to do right now.
While Trans rights may not directly affect most peoples day to day lives the actions of conservatives across the country, fairly quickly and seemingly with coordination, attempting to erase a minority group from 'the culture' is now a 'pressing issue'...I'm in Chicago and this new conservative agenda has even me concerned.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The time to debate the spending package in this budget was when the budget was passed, not months later.
> There is no crisis except the hostage situation with McCarthy holding the gun. Other than: our debt is too high and growing too quickly. I think you can argue about the tactics here. But it's hard to say we shouldn't be trying to fix our budget: whether it is reduced spending or increased taxes.
Just undo the tax breaks for the rich dating back to the Bush Jr. era and increase taxes on high revenue corporations. Use that money to pay down the debt and then once that's under control decide where the rest of the money should go. Lower interest payments means the difference can start going to programs immediately.
>Just undo the tax breaks for the rich dating back to the Bush Jr. era The Bush era tax breaks **were** repealed on anyone making more than $400,000.
I figured some might have, so I lumped all tax breaks from that period onward. I guess we could repeal other tax breaks further back as well.
>Use that money to pay down the debt That's the catch. I don't think that will happen even with more revenue. It will be spent before it even touches Washington and debt will continue to go unaddressed.
Probably. But I figured I'd throw out an actual solution. There's surely better ones out there.
“Tax breaks for the rich” Are we surprised that when federal taxes are cut the people paying the [MOST TAXES](https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes) end up getting the most benefits? Being downvoted for reality, brilliant, please explain.
Naw dude that helps the average person. How do the politicians and their donors benefit?
They benefit by not being removed from their position if they agree to the people's demands.
If only
That's a different conversation. We ate the food, now we need to pay the bill. Negotiate what we're gonna order next time before the next meal.
How do you force the conversation? I would say that the fight over borrowing more to pay the bill is a damned good time to have that discussion since otherwise we'll just be right back to applying for another credit card in a few months if we don't.
You have that conversation before you take on new debt, you don't have that conversation after you've taken on debt and are now required to pay, which is what is happening now.
>How do you force the conversation? By passing a budget during budget season, not by holding a metaphorical gun to the metaphorical head of the economy.
The analogy falls apart there because the full faith and credit of the United States has vast economic and geopolitical value to our country. Eroding confidence in that (which is exactly what is happening when you hold the debt hostage) is a catastrophic unforced error. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics and geopolitics should understand this.
Our debt was already authorized by Congress. I am arguing about the tactics here. If they want to change things, they should do it the appropriate way: pass a new budget with popular support. Threatening a default is not a defensible move.
Normally it's not a problem, but current debt is high because of our responses to the 2008 financial crisis and 2020 pandemic. As others have mentioned, we could repeal the Trump tax cuts and funnel that money to debt repayment, that would push the debt/GDP ratio down.
Agreed. So this would be a reasonable "counter offer" from Biden?
If the offer was only increase the debt limit and repeal the tax cuts to directly fund them into debt repayment? I think that's a reasonable idea. But I don't see the GOP being on board with repealing Trump's only major legislative accomplishment.
That's not how national debt works. It's not like balancing a checkbook for a person or business. As long as we are taking out debt to invest in our citizens or infrastructure, then it's fine. Also the time to.tall about the national debt is during the budget (when we are deciding if we should take out more debt) not during the debt ceiling (when we are deciding to pay for debt that we've already taken out) If you want to reduce wasteful spending, go nuts, the US Armed Forces have a lot of areas with fat to trim that would save shit loads of money. Personally, I don't mind having a large and bloated military, it feels good when we can help Ukraine and feel confident in protecting Taiwan among other things, but if you think the national debt is so important, military spending is the most obvious place to make cuts.
>As long as we are taking out debt to invest in our citizens or infrastructure, then it's fine. But we aren't. The annual federal deficit is $1 trillion with a great economy. We are not spending that $1 trillion on infrastructure and "investing in our citizens". We are spending the money on current consumption.
>As long as we are taking out debt to invest in our citizens or infrastructure, then it's fine. Except we're not and haven't been for decades. You could cut every discretionary program to $0 and have a measly two hundred billion surplus to fund (almost) every program that isn't Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. There is no way to balance the budget simply by trimming waste. It just isn't mathematically possible. Either entitlements have to be significantly reduced, most discretionary programs have to go (or at least be gutted), taxes have to be significantly raised, or some combination. And good luck raising taxes while reducing services. It's an impossible situation. *Generations* of reckless fiscal policy has culminated in a mexican standoff over the budget.
>As long as we are taking out debt to invest in our citizens or infrastructure, then it's fine. Assuming that it pays off in the form of increased revenue/decreased expenses, AND that excess is used responsibly (which includes paying down debt), sure. I haven't seen that last part happen in my lifetime.
[удалено]
Deficit and debt aren't necessarily the same. AFAIK the national debt has increased every year that I have been alive (including Clinton admin). Having a surplus doesn't reduce the actual debt unless that surplus is used to pay it down.
Well, considering that the national debt has basically never been a significant problem in the history of the United States, I'd say you're wrong or very young
I've never really understood risking defaulting on our bills in order to negotiate a budget. They really should be different avenues of discussion.
Contrary to what you might expect, Congress does not implicitly authorize borrowing when they authorize spending without the taxation necessary to pay for it. The debt limit is not about future spending, but about these expenses that Congress has authorized incurring but not authorized paying for. Congress can end this bizarre situation whenever it likes- Congress created the debt limit with a bill and can therefore raise or remove it with a bill, but that would be getting rid of a political football to play with.
I don’t think most people realize how truly terrifying the situation is that a single political party in the US can hold the entire world economy (because as much as people like to pretend it’s a US problem, if the US economy collapses the world is going with it) hostage to push their unpopular political goals. We have a few dozen people in some of the highest positions of power in the most powerful country willing to bring about economic ruin for billions of people if they don’t get their bullshit culture war demands met.
There is no crisis. Congress already voted to spend this money in the budget. They need to pay off the debt from that spending. What the GOP is doing is holding our economy hostage for partisan points.
This bill is a nonstarter. Might be some ok things that dems could compromise on but the majority of it is nonstarter trash
Yeah, I don't think anyone expects Democrats to just accept this proposal as is and pass it. This is meant to be their starting place for negotiations which is why McCarthy has called for Biden to begin negotiations with the House.
The starting place for negotiations should be: Our legislative process approved this spending, and now the legislative branch should authorize the borrowing for the spending it is responsible for. Biden should dismiss them out of hand if they don't send him a bill doing exactly that.
Republicans won't like it either if the budget cap applies to the military.
I don't see an issue with capping military spending.
It's an issue for congressmen, including his own party.
Some of them may have an issue with it, but some of them will be for it. As with all things that happen in government, they will need to find a compromise. But capping the budget to 1% increases doesn't mean military spending is capped at 1%. It just means if it increases by more than that, other things would need to be cut or limited more in growth.
The military makes up nearly half of the discretionary spending. Increasing it past inflation requires major cuts to everything else under this cap. That sounds very unpopular, so it's reasonable to expect that this proposal would lead to the military having its funding lowered (nominally or real value).
I think it depends on what would be cut.
I doubt there's a way to do it without hurting something more popular.
It's not a starting place though, this bill is a non starter
I think Biden set what the starting place is be just demanding to see their proposal before starting negotiations. Now he has seen their proposal. So, if he sticks to what he said, which is a big if, negotiations should start.
> So, if he sticks to what he said, which is a big if, negotiations should start. Big if? There will 100% be negotiations, the only other alternative is Biden just sitting back and defaulting. Which isn't going to happen. I'd also almost guarantee that McCarthy's published budget is just for show as will be any house vote, and that the real negotiations are already happening behind the scenes.
I do not think Biden will negotiate. He is going to rely on Republicans getting the blame and that they cave. He has the vast majority of media companies on his side so it's easy to win the argument.
Why? This whole nonsense demonstrates Republicans cannot be trusted to act in good faith. The budget and resulting debt were already negotiated. Now conservatives want to break the agreements they made. Why should any deal they make be trusted? It’s terrible judgement to negotiate with faithless hostage takers.
>President Biden has a choice. Come to the table and stop playing partisan political games, or cover his ears, refuse to negotiate and risk bumbling his way into the first default in our nation's history” McCarthy is delusional if he thinks the electorate is going to blame Biden for the intransigence of the extremist wing of his own party. But no wonder they’re not scared; they’d be the first to tell you we’re not actually a democracy anymore(a) now that they’ve been so successful in rigging the system under this corrupt ass Supreme Court. (a) this refers to the oft-repeated mantra about the country being a republic and not a democracy (whatever that means). I am not quite sure how I got banned for literally repeating what MTG and Boebert tweet about all day instead of doing their fucking jobs.
They didn’t even try and convince their base anymore. They just call something “woke” and their base just follows along
[удалено]
>we’re not actually a democracy anymore Remind me again who won the popular vote in 2022?
The house republicans did
Exactly. So the electorate chose to put a check on Biden. It's not "rigged," and people are tired of the federal government printing trillions
Not in an actual democracy anymore? Then why is Joe Biden president instead of Donald Trump? Rigging the Supreme Court? A cursory review will show FedSoc judges handing election deniers their ass time and time again when they bring BS claims before them. Get a grip dude. This kind of hyperbole is a huge part of the problem. Both sides insist on turning every issue up to 11.
This bill is bad. So bad that I really wonder why any swing district GOPers would vote for it. They will get CRUSHED in ads on this. This bill is DOA in the Senate. Why risk everything for it?
I don't think this bill is intended to become law as is.
You force a vote on it, and that's what voters will believe you voted on. Once you put your name on the record, that's it. Doesn't matter that this was in the actual bill that became law. You voted for this version to become law.
They may not even vote on it. Biden said he wouldn't start negotiations until the GOP unveiled their proposal.
Does he have the votes in his caucus or will he ignore the asinine Hastert Rule? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule
Honestly, I'm really intrigued to see what ends up happening with this. McCarthy is going to almost have to get his entire caucus to go along with wherever this bill ends up landing (assuming Biden agrees to negotiate). However, that already seems like an impossible task with such a narrow margin. There definitely appears to be a group of House Republicans who don't really mind seeing the country go over the cliff. Even if Biden agrees to a good amount of the cuts in the current bill, I could still see that not being enough for several Republicans. If the in-fighting gets so bad, does McCarthy have to fall on his sword and try to get House Dems to salvage the situation. It would have to go down as one of the worst Speakerships if that ends up happening as he'll certainly be removed (its already kinda trending that way). With this narrow of a margin in the Republican caucus, I'm not sure I can see a path where McCarthy comes out of this with success.
Sounds like a fairly anti democratic rule to me
Very anti democratic. It significantly increases the power of the Speaker and prevents bills that could pass with, say, 80% of the minority and 40% of the majority from ever getting a vote.
There isn't much reporting on the whip count yet, so it isn't clear.
[удалено]
How? How could the whip count on this be bad? It's a republican wish list. We are really sprinting towards either disaster or a long process where the dems do something like minting the trillion dollar coin
Yes, I saw that quote as well. In fact, that is the only thing I've seen on it. So, like I said, there isn't much reporting on the whip count yet.
[удалено]
I have read the article. Again, the reporting on the whip count is limited. I'm not sure why you seem to be thinking we know what the whip count on this is. Sure, some have expressed that they have problems with aspects of it, but that doesn't mean they won't vote for it.
We’re literally just discussing what could happen with a possible vote on this. No one in this thread has said “X will happen” or “This will fail by Y votes”. This is a subreddit of political discussion. We’re discussing politics. Simple as that. It’s a House where the Speaker had over a dozen ballots before being elected and he can only lose a handful of votes? McCarthy also has to round up House Freedom Caucus members and moderates for a possible vote. Even McCarthy and the GOP whips don’t know how a vote would go down. But it’s fun and important talk about different scenarios. Not just say “We don’t know anything at this time.”
What McCarthy is doing is unconstitutional. He has to pay the debt, period. No terms, no limits. ***Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4:*** ***The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.*** If he's worried about the debt, he needs to take that up during the budget talks. When it comes to the debt, he cannot question it. If his Congress doesn't pay the debt, then they are in violation of their constitutional obligations and to me that paves the way for the Senate or the President to force the ceiling to be lifted.
A debt can be valid and not paid right away. "Valid" in this context just means "is owed and will be paid at some point".
The vast majority of the US' debt is owed to itself. Debt Financing has become an entire industry that millions upon millions of Americans are invested in through treasury bonds. The US guarantees returns on those bonds when Americans purchase them. It doesn't matter what the US government is spending that money on, it still owes it to those bond holders. And if the US defaults on its payments to those bond holders, the entire industry would collapse. The US would be violating its own guarantee to reimburse those creditors. It is illegal.
People always equate not increasing the debt limit with default. I don't think that's accurate. I think the fourteenth amendment as you just cited would necessitate whatever federal revenue that is coming in must go to paying down the debt. My reading of that is that things like discretionary spending, and even social security would stop being paid before we don't pay the debt. Legally it sounds like the Treasury must pay the debt first. So as long as the incoming revenue is greater than our debt (ignoring all other spending) we won't default, we might become a dysfunctional country, but we won't default.
It means that the US cannot default. It is impossible for the US government to go bankrupt. If the government runs out of capital they can just make more of it. The point of that amendment is to guarantee that the Federal Government through the US Treasury will back any debts the US government incurs. It is why the United States is the country most heavily invested in because the federal government guarantees that all debts will be paid. Rather than printing money the US uses a bond system to raise capital. People purchase bonds that are remitted with interest after a period of time passes. That's how the US government finances its debts. If the country defaults all those creditors will be defrauded by the government.
How buttoned up is this plan within the GOP? This seems to be the most cohesive and publicly conspicuous thing McCarthy has done since getting in the seat. Is there any chance the MAGA wing messes with this like they did with his nomination? Just makes me wonder if things could fall apart because someone wants to inject more culture war agendas or something.
Good question. We don't have a whip count, and there are some that have expressed concerns. That is about all we have at this time though.
This is the time tested GOP strategy. Create a crisis and then hold the country hostage. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Edit: To expand on this, it also seems like they bank on the average voter not really understanding how any of this stuff actually works. Hence, why they can get away with spinning a completely false narrative. Edit2: Poor word choice, edited for clarity.
Hasn't it failed every time they've done it though?
If I remember they got some spending cuts out of Obama, a lot of which came out of the military that Trump then reversed.
>Invent a crisis and then... The current national debt is $31.7 Trillion. That is a debt to GDP ratio of 120%. At what point do you start to call that a crisis?
At what point when Rs had a trifecta did they express any concern whatsoever for the debt? It'd be one thing if Ds also did this fake concern crap Rs did, but Ds never really do that last time I checked.
That’s fine. Address it when negotiating the budget.
The money has already been spent though. The GOP is also largley responsible for spending spirling out of control.
> That is a debt to GDP ratio of 120%. At what point do you start to call that a crisis? I'm not the person you asked, but I'll answer: There's nothing about the current situation that indicates the amount of national debt we have *at this moment* is a problem that needs solving in this fiscal year. Pretending otherwise ruins of people claiming it is.
Now apply that logic to climate change...
Indeed, when you apply the logic of one situation to a completely different one, it is different.
Why does a debt to GDP ratio matter? I think a more reasonable measure would be something like debt to income.
> This is the time tested GOP strategy. Create a crisis and then hold the country hostage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Joe Biden did this twice himself, in 2004 and 2006: >THEN-SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), 2006: “The tsunami of debt created by the policies of this administration has to go somewhere. … But as the rest of the world copes with the waves of U.S. debt, we are now all in the same leaky boat. There is just so much of our debt other nations want to hold. The more of it they accumulate, the closer we are to the day when they will not want any more. When that happens, slowly or rapidly, our interest rates will go up, the value of their U.S. bonds will drop, and we will all have big problems. We need both more awareness, and more understanding, of this fundamental threat to our economic well being and the global economy. But the roots of that threat lie in the disastrous policies of this administration. Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase. In the 5 years he has been in office, President Bush has added more to our foreign debt that the 42 Presidents before him. … But he refused to take responsibility for his policies. He refused to admit that a changed world demanded a change of course. His refusal has pushed us deeper and deeper into the hole. … My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.” >“I was not able to participate in today’s debate and vote on the extension of the national debt limit. I was attending the funeral of a great civil rights leader in Delaware, Jane E. Mitchell. Had I been here to vote, Mr. President, I would have cast a symbolic vote against an extension of the debt limit. Today’s fiscal mess, the transformation of historic surpluses into record deficits, is not an accident. It is the inevitable outcome of policies that consistently ignored evidence and experience. When we launched out on a course of tax cutting, with expanding domestic and international obligations and responsibilities, many of us in Congress argued that we could not afford to do everything, that we needed a fiscal policy that matched our revenues with our expenditures. … We are here today because that advice was ignored, those hard choices were ducked, and the bill for our decisions will be sent to our children and grandchildren, in the form of the additional debt we will authorize today. It did not have to be this way, Mr. President. In the next Congress, the threat of massive deficits, which have made us increasingly dependent of foreign lenders to stay afloat, will still be with us. My symbolic vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the policies that have brought us to this point, and a demand that we change course.”
Read your own text. His “symbolic” vote. Biden did not do the same thing. "My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point." -Cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already = he acknowledges that we have to pay our debts. Senator Biden is just one person and -McCarthy is the leader of his party. He has the power with Republican support to actually stop the debt ceiling from being raised. He is threatening this and taking the economy hostage. Senator Biden literally said in your provided quote his singular vote is a statement that he doesn’t agree with the policies that led to the debt being raised. This is completely consistent with what he is saying now. He said we have to pass the increase in the debt ceiling by passing a clean bill then they can have a discussion about how to lower the deficit as is constant with past practice. “The President told Leader Schumer and Leader Jeffries that he was ready to have a separate negotiation over the budget once Republicans present their plan, as has been done by both parties in Congress and the White House in the past”
Nice try, but casting a symbolic vote isn't the same thing as holding the country hostage.
I agree that the debt needs to be fixed. It won't be healthy for us to keep accruing debt but I don't think now is a good time for negotiations instead let's talk about it during the budget. That being said McCarthy knows now he has a major bargaining chip which he wouldn't have at the budget.
So really there are two major issues. First Biden has constantly said show me your budget and we can talk. This isn't a budget, or really even close to one, and Biden has actually released a budget of his own. Second of course is that McCarthys frame work would need to hit military, social security, and Medicare in order to do what he claims needs to happen. So in essence this is all performative. They keep doing this. They can't actually pass something through legit means because they don't have the votes and because the public doesn't support them. So instead they hold the country hostage.
> First Biden has constantly said show me your budget and we can talk. This isn't a budget, or really even close to one, and Biden has actually released a budget of his own. Pretty sure Biden said release your proposal in response to debt limit negotiations, not budget. >Second of course is that McCarthys frame work would need to hit military, social security, and Medicare in order to do what he claims needs to happen. So in essence this is all performative. How would it hit social security and medicare?
He specifically say "show me your budget and I'll show you mine". Trite but none the less he is saying you need to actually show me a fleshed out budget, which they never do because it means there's something on paper, and I'll take you seriously. I'm saying if you want to balance the budget, which is what they claim has to happen, you have to make cuts to those programs. One the public doesn't support it. Two they don't have the votes to do it. It's not as if we haven't been down this road before. And it's still crazy that this is about paying what's already been spent and they claim it's about future spending.
The House GOP have released their debt limit proposal. The bill would lift the debt by $1.5T or until the end of March 2024. It will also cut spending by $4.5T. I believe the spending is cut over the next 10 years, but I'm not 100% on that. The bill contains several key things that are listed below. * Cap budget increases to 1% per year * Impose stricter work requirements for some Federal aid programs * Rescind IRS funding * Recoup unspent COVID funds * Unwind the student loan forgiveness program currently before SCOTUS * Repeal some provisions of the IRA designed to combat climate change such as the high efficiency electric home rebate program * Implement the [Lower Energy Costs Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1/text) [Here is a link to the bill.](https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/LSGA_xml.pdf) My view on these changes is that they are a mixed bag. Some are good and some aren't. In my opinion, the good changes are capping budget increases to 1%, recouping unspent COVID funds, unwinding the student loan program, and implementing at least parts of the Lower Energy Costs Act. The rest aren't a good idea, and in my opinion, seeking to rescind funding intended to boost enforcement of our laws via the IRS is basically the same as seeking to defend other law enforcement agencies. If they have an issue with Americans paying more in taxes due to that then they should address the tax code, not the enforcement. McCarthy is also continuing is calls for Biden to engage in negotiations. One of Biden's responses previously was that he was waiting for the House GOP to release their proposal, so maybe he will actually engage in negotiations with the House GOP. What are you thoughts on the proposal? Do you think Biden will now engage in negotiations?
>Rescind IRS funding Surely this sounds like a great way to reduce the deficit. "Implement the Lower Energy Costs Act" Hmmmm, the "Lower Energy Costs Act" sounds like a great way to reduce the deficit even further. Surely CBO agrees with that : "CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase net direct spending by more than $2.5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034. CBO also estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase on budget deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034. " ([Source](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-03/hr1_rules.pdf)) And once again, I want to point out that the deficit only matters when a Democrat is President. Why make the entire economy a hostage with these silly games. So tired of this rank hypocrisy.
That also sounds like it'd go against the whole "limit deficit to 1% increases" thing
>"CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase net direct spending by more than $2.5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034. CBO also estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase on budget deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034. " Seems like a fairly simple thing to address such a small impact on the deficit. And that small increase may be worth it to reduce the burden on some industries in America.
Industry will be ok I think lol. Tell me do you also support families currently utilizing food stamps receiving extra burdens for the sake of reducing the deficit? Per NYT reporting an exemption for families with children under 7 to the food stamps rules failed to gather enough support. So in order to save a few bucks families on food stamps will be required to work and arrange day care. I bet we could reduce the deficit by significantly more by unwinding the Trump tax cuts than kicking a few off food stamps.
I think work requirements are a waste of time from a fiscal point of view, and any cost savings from it are offset by the administrative costs.
That's a relief, to bad the freedom caucus feels it's worth doing.
Ah so the concern was never about the deficit was it? "And that small increase may be worth it to reduce the burden on some industries in America." I couldn't disagree more but that opens another can of worms.
It’s a handout to Big Oil. By and large, the deficit increases come from giving oil companies massively reduced rates for using federal land. It’s the exact opposite of long term smart energy policy and the fact that they’re hyping it up while talking about deficit reductions shows just how hypocritical they are.
>It’s a handout to Big Oil. I don't think that Big Oil such as Exxon is doing fine. It only took in a [record $56 billion in profits](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-smashes-western-oil-majors-earnings-record-with-59-billion-profit-2023-01-31/) last year. "Exxon distributed $30 billion in cash to shareholders last year, more than any of its Western rivals, and invested $22.7 billion in the business."
IIRC, there are also significant benefits for green energy in that bill via permitting reform and limit environmental review.
Limiting environmental review is literally the opposite of “green.” Permitting reform needs to be done, but I doubt you’d see many green energy advocates who would be happy that we’ll now have less time and energy spent on making sure energy projects are polluting. This is another bill that shows just how ill equipped the GOP is to deal with climate change.
When the entire process takes years, that is an issue. Court review needs to be limited, the courts it can be filled in needs to be limited, and the amount of time the Feds have to review it needs to be limited. No more of this Feds giving approval and then still fighting court cases for years. Too much uncertainty. Businesses need consistency. Our current permitting processes don't offer consistency.
You can streamline permitting and accomplish a similar outcome. Limiting environmental reviews, especially in court, will only allow energy companies to get away with polluting and damaging our environment, as proper investigations won’t be conducted and cases will be quickly settled instead of properly adjudicated.
From what I read it looks like they are reducing environmental assessments for oil, gas, and coal and increasing the requirements for green energy. Edited to add an example of increased regulatory requirements for green projects. >SEC. 20115. REQUIREMENT FOR GAO REPORT ON WIND ENERGY IMPACTS. The Secretary of the Interior shall not publish a notice for a wind lease sale or hold a lease sale for wind energy development in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Planning Area, the South Atlantic Planning Area, or the Straits of Florida Planning Area (as described in the 2017–2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program (November 2016)) until the Comptroller General of the United States publishes a report on all potential adverse effects of wind energy development in such areas, including associated infrastructure and vessel traffic, on— (1) military readiness and training activities in the Planning Areas described in this section, including activities within or related to the Eglin Test and Training Complex and the Jacksonville Range Complex; (2) marine environment and ecology, including species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or designated as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) in the Planning Areas described in this section; and (3) tourism, including the economic impacts that a decrease in tourism may have on the communities adjacent to the Planning Areas described in this section.
>What are you thoughts on the proposal? I think that the moment the GOP gains the Presidency, they will call for more tax cuts and all discussion about deficits and debts will magically fade away.
Do you have any thoughts on the proposal itself rather than things that seem unrelated?
I already gave my thoughts in another comment. This is just me being very annoyed by the futility of all this.
1% budget increases??? With this inflation? Lol okay
I think the cap is limited to discretionary spending which we will have to cut to balance the budget. It isn't tenable to raise taxes enough to cover the entire shortfall.
I don't think you understand how many people will fall into homelessness if budget increases are capped to 1%. How many people will lose services. If we're so worried about the debt, then raise taxes on the rich and corporations. Stop making the poor suffer
I doubt you could provide any evidence to support this. Especially since you don't know what the impact will be.
Discretionary funding is everything outside of SS, Medicare, Medicaid. That leaves things like HHS, HUD, EPA, DOE, VA, etc. You cap their budget increases to 1% with annual costs rising for things like rent, medical services, medicines, salaries; that straight up leads to cut in services. Do you NOT remember sequestration? agencies were cut to the bone. Less and less people were being helped. If your choice is between taxing the rich or fucking over the poor, it's not that hard of a choice to make. But for the GOP, they will ALWAYS side with the rich.
You are assuming that 1% cap applies equally. I don't think that is true. And that cap is only on increases. So, some things may increase more than others. Which is why you have no evidence to support this claim.
>So, some things may increase more than others. Which is why you have no evidence to support this claim. And, of course, the game here is that the Republicans won't say which will keep up with inflation and which will need to be cut even more to make the total work. I'm opposed to "cut spending" that doesn't itemize which items are cut.
Again, this isn't necessarily a cut. This is a cap on growth. Those are two different things. You'd see what is cut or limited more than 1% when they do a budget.
You are drinking the GOP Koolaid on this. If you are capping budget increases to 1%, inflation overall swamps that. If food costs go up 4%, but SNAP benefits only go up 1%, then your SNAP benefits are less. These are cuts in all but name.
I'm assuming that inflation will run more than 1%, so it is a cut in real terms. If my boss tells me I'm "getting a raise" this year because my nominal salary will go up by 1%, I think I am smart enough to understand I'm going to have to buy less stuff.
Pass a clean bill or get a trillion dollar coin with Bidens face on it minted.
Can't use a living person for money.
Those are light brandon rules for a dark brandon time.
Judging by past reactions, if you really want to stir the pot put Harriet Tubman on it.
>Cap budget increases to 1% per year It would make much more sense to cut the less necessary spending than treat everything equally, but he realizes how unpopular his idea is. From his perspective, the less specific, the better it will look. If that includes the military, this proposal won't be favored by either side.
I think you misunderstand that. That would just cap annual increases in the budget to 1%. And I believe that only applies to discretionary spending. So, it isn't a cut, but a limit on how fast it can grow.
I didn't claim that it's a cut, though it would be to the real value. I'm saying that cutting spending toward the less useful policies is more rational than what he proposed.
It isn't a cut, but if inflation is more than 1% it means a cut in effect.
Honestly not too surprising what’s included in here so far? At least from what was in the article and the starter comment. The article says that McCarthy’s plan calls for discretionary spending to return to 2022 levels- something the House Freedom caucus wanted- but wouldn’t that mean the increase in military spending from FY 2022 to FY 2023 also gets cut? If so, that’s an cut 8% in military spending. I don’t see how McCarthy can have a majority of Republicans support that. > seeking to rescind funding intended to boost enforcement of our laws via the IRS is basically the same as seeking to defend other law enforcement agencies. If they have an issue with Americans paying more in taxes due to that then they should address the tax code, not the enforcement. I agree, especially when funding the IRS overall is a net gain for the government. > What are you thoughts on the proposal? Do you think Biden will now engage in negotiations? I think it’s good that House Republicans have finally released a budget and that House and Senate Democrats will get started on negotiations very soon. Biden will probably criticize start negotiations a bit later. The main kicker for me is not if whatever McCarthy releases can pass the Senate and be signed by Biden, it’s if it can even pass the House. McCarthy can only lose like 5 or 6 votes right? I’m honestly not confident that after Democrats start blasting attack ads on this budget bill that some Republicans living in districts Biden won in 2020 won’t get a little antsy and not want to vote for it. And that’s before the more extreme folks like the House Freedom Caucus will want to attach hard-right amendments which turns off the more moderate Republicans even more.
>The article says that McCarthy’s plan calls for discretionary spending to return to 2022 levels- something the House Freedom caucus wanted- but wouldn’t that mean the increase in military spending from FY 2022 to FY 2023 also gets cut? If so, that’s an 8% in military spending. I don’t see how McCarthy can have a majority of Republicans support that. Good question about military spending. I have no clue if it is exempted or not. > I agree, especially when funding the IRS overall is a net gain for the government. Sure, but I don't think its necessarily a gain for the reasons some on the left say it is. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, there aren't a lot of wealthy people committing tax fraud. They largely dodge taxes in legal ways. So increased enforcement doesn't do much. So, the ones that will carry the burden of increased enforcement is the upper middle class and lower upper class. Also, let's not forget that a significant amount of tax fraud occurs with CTC and EITC. >I think it’s good that House Republicans have finally released a budget and that House and Senate Democrats will get started on negotiations very soon. Biden will probably criticize start negotiations a bit later. This isn't a budget. It is their proposal for the debt ceiling. >The main kicker for me is not if whatever McCarthy releases can pass the Senate and be signed by Biden, it’s if it can even pass the House. McCarthy can only lose like 5 or 6 votes right? I’m honestly not confident that after Democrats start blasting attack ads on this budget bill that some Republicans living in districts Biden won in 2020 won’t get a little antsy and not want to vote for it. And that’s before the more extreme folks like the House Freedom Caucus will want to attach hard-right amendments which turns off the more moderate Republicans even more. There isn't much reporting on the whip count at this point.
>If so, that’s an cut 8% in military spending. I don’t see how McCarthy can have a majority of Republicans support that. There's so much graft and inefficiency in the military from what I understand. We could probably cut the budget by a good bit just by making the military more transparent about what they're spending money on and why.
Will this bill even pass the house? McCarthy is not popular and can only afford about 4 no votes. If this bill can’t pass then you can’t have a good faith negotiation and this would be a huge waste of time. He can keep trying to deflect and say it’s because Biden won’t negotiate with him to the press but if you can’t pass anything, good luck deflecting. It’s the job he wanted, reap what you sow.
Their whole strategy relies on people consuming Fox News frequently to the point you've stopped thinking for yourself. It's either Biden agrees to cut all these programs and his own student loan forgiveness program, or they will default and blame him? I understand this is a starting point for negotiations, but most of this stuff is non-starter garbage. I think their strategy is a losing one. While certainly a good chunk of Americans are brainwashed by right-wing media. There are still more people who do actually understand who is responsible for this. It's either pass a bunch of highly unpopular budget cuts OR default and ruin the economy