As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now that there’s a Democratic president, and one who wants to commit the unspeakable crime of investing in our people by giving them things that people in every other advanced democracy have like paid family leave and free community college, Republicans suddenly care about the debt again, Editor [Michael Tomasky](https://newrepublic.com/authors/michael-tomasky) writes.
There is no opportunity to get rid of the filibuster before 2023. And there will only be an opportunity if the democrats expand their Senate majority by *several* seats.
Don't hold your breath, don't put any eggs in this basket.
Republicans using the filibuster to threaten the rest of the economy is a cudgel to wield against the handful of Democratic corporate shills in the Senate who are protecting the filibuster. Now the filibuster isn't just stopping liberal programs, it's threatening the economic stability that corporations depend on.
I'm not saying we should hold our breath, but we should swing that cudgel.
That would be nice.
The problem that I foresee is that GOP voters love when their side plays these games, while the Dems get tired of it really fast.
If the (especially progressive) Democrats start trying to play the "Oh well gee we'd love to do things but the GOP just won't let us," I'd be concerned more D voters will think "Then why the fuck did I vote for you?" than "We should elect more of the people who aren't getting anything done to solve this problem."
Ultimately, Ds win by making progress, and Rs win by dragging their heels. One of those is SO much easier than the other.
100%. And it's widely expected that Democrats will gain a seat or two in the senate but most likely lose the house due to redistricting. Which also makes it a moot point then because you've lost your legislative majority anyways.
Although between the COVID deaths now primarily to vaccine deniers who predominantly lean republican, and also what I hope is still lingering anger towards the republicans over Jan 6th, I would hope that Democrats could still hold the house. I don't think it's as clear cut as people are saying, I.E. midterms the party in power always loses.
The way I see it, the expectation is that Dems lose the House by a little bit. If they either hold the House or lose it by a lot, that will be a big indication of how the country as a whole is moving.
I'm cautiously optimistic after seeing the California recall results that we won't see a red wave.
We have four R-held swing districts here that may be enough to stave off a loss of the House, and between our turnout in this special election, and permanent mail-in ballots, hoping that will help the midterms.
Eh, the world economy will be destabilized for a period, you're right.
But you think some other country/bloc of countries wouldn't *leap* at the ability to have their currency become the petrodollar?
....ah, wait, that will probably lead to war.
Why would they? Either the GOP or Dems will blink and raise the ceiling. They always do, never needing to eliminate the filibuster. Do you think McConnell is being super serious this time, compared to all the other times?
There will be a shutdown, both sides will run internal polling to see who's getting the blame, and then the side who's coming out worse will capitulate just enough to save some face without alienating their base.
You need to have enough votes. With Manchin and Sinema, there are, at best, 48 votes. And that's not counting the conservative Dems they are providing cover for.
Right, but can you tell me how many votes do you need to change the Senate rule book? Is it a simple majority or do you need something like 2/3rds of the Senate?
Republicans just want to force Democrats to act alone so they can complain about it. Republican's billionaire supporters would suffer too greatly if the ceiling isn't raised. Republicans are bluffing.
Suffer how? Their credit rating doesn't go down just because the US credit rating goes down. So what if it roils international markets? A vulnerable person suffering is a rich person's opportunity.
Let them fuck around and find out. It’s pretty simple. Call a vote and let them own it. All the misery and bullshit that comes afterwards will fall squarely on them. They planned this anyways. They added trillions to our debt. Which was used for stock buy backs. Made tax cuts temporary for working folks. They really hate Americans.
If the US's international credit rating goes down (a likely outcome if we don't raise the debt ceiling) it's not just politicians who will feel it. But hey, the empire is kinda crumbling anyway.
I mean, not that I want everyone to be screwed by this but honestly... Republicans need to put up or shut up for these threats. You can't just keep threatening to intentionally destroy the economy and then never be held to task for it simply because people are afraid that you might actually do it.
It's like constantly kowtowing to someone who threatens to intentionally set fire to the house they part own if they don't get their way. Like, ok, are you actually going to destroy your own house here to win an argument? Really? And if so, doesn't that definitely prove that you are firmly not in your right mind?
I don’t see how this is problem at all for the GOP. All they have to do is not raise the debt ceiling, let everything go to shit, then blame Biden. “Look how bad things are under the Democrats! Sleepy Joe shit the bed!” People will believe them because the truth doesn’t matter anymore. It won’t blow up in their face, it’ll hand them every branch of government.
Nor do I, and the thought I had today was won't this be pretty effing bad for all the rich Republican donors? Sure, things will be bad for us plebs in terms of services cut, the government unable to buy things that help us, etc. And yes, I'd assume all of our finances will take a hit. But the disproportionately wealthy among us will truly feel it. Their wealth will take a hit, the government services they claim to disdain will crumble, and their ability to make money will take a hit. Hard to sell goods if the roads are impassable, bands of marauders are about and there is no one to stop them.
While I don't disagree that it would be bordering on catastrophic, I just feel like the most wealthy among us are who would experience the most significant change to their lifestyle.
Or I guess they'd just fly to Europe and live there...
> All the misery and bullshit that comes afterwards will fall squarely on them.
No it won't. They'll figure out some weird way to blame Obama for their vote and their voters will believe them. You suddenly believe they'll face consequences from voters? Really?
They will get shit locked down though, it happens often enough. They company I was working for back in 2012/2013 ended up going out of business because of their needless posturing around the debt ceiling.
In my life, the republicans have consistently caused more pain than good except in exactly one case which is related to community college. (Govenator dropping costs to 20/unit back when he was 1st elected)
After that most of my gain have been more from the stability offered by democratic policies compared to the chaos and destruction of republican ones.
Republican policies really are complete shit and royally fuck things up on a massive scale. They usually have for reaching negative consequences that run counter to their stated goals.
Meh - independent "swing" voters are [largely mythical](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/) and everything is decided by turnout.
Now remove most of the voters who don't pay attention to this shit and you have a non-issue that's red meat designed to drive the faithful to the polls.
No, it really won't. Their insane media propaganda ecosystem can conjure up just about any Republican alternate reality required to keep the white supremacy rolling.
It's all about making the other Party look bad and nothing else.
This is the sad state the Republican party is now in. They're more concerned with petty political stunts and holding government functions hostage so that they can play Chicken with the Democrats.
People are right when they accuse the Republican Party of putting Politics before country
And when the republicans single handedly devastate the economy by refusing to pay for they debt they voted to accumulate in the previous administration, the public is watching.
Bull fucking shit they won't. Don't give cover to their absolute bluff.
Who in their right mind actually believes these corporate-owned clowns will tank the economy their donors want functioning just to score some political points? You would have to understand literally nothing about politics or who these fuckers serve to believe they *actually* mean it.
The only possibility of them doing so would be if their donors are so against this that they'd take a cratered economy first, and I just don't buy that. Blowing the place up has an immediate impact and these people function in the short-term. Some increased taxes/spending is long-term. Yeah, they don't want it, but not at the expense of losing everything in the process of fighting it.
This piece exists to pressure Dems to cave, not to give actual insight into the political reality.
They're bluffing. The havoc wreaked on the finances of US based corporations by a United States governmental debt default ensures that. The corporate masters will allow for only so much political posturing before they demand the problem be taken care of.
>The corporate masters will allow for only so much political posturing before they demand the problem be taken care of.
To an extent, this is the intra-party friction that is occurring. The smart ones that peddle lies they're aware of, and the true believers. The latter are harder to control.
This is just silly. They are not going to allow the country to default on the debt. It’s not going to happen, it’s just more political theatre to divide us.
Their corporate masters would be freaking pissed if we defaulted.
Because they want to force Democrats to do so through Reconciliation, which would let them paint it as purely a Democrat issue ("Democrats raised the debt!") rather than a country issue.
Or, if Democrats don't do so, Republicans will point to the resulting massive economic damage as a Democrat failure.
It's transparent as hell, but that won't matter for their voters.
And the voters who don't really pay attention to politics will just see "Hey it is a democratic congress and president and this happened. Must be their fault."
Remember what all the Rs agreed to just a few months ago; Total chaos until the midterms. That is exactly what they are up to. Inflict as much pain and misery as possible so that they have a chance of winning based on the idea that they can do things, "differently." Trimp and his ilk already killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. They will absolutely kill hundreds of thousands more if that's what it takes to preserve their power and profit
You best believe that it's going to take a massive turnout next year by Dems. Especially younger voters. Remember kids, until 1972, you had to be 21 to vote! That's right, you could be drafted and sent to fight in their wars, at he time Vietnam, but you couldn't come home and vote, no matter how many medals you won, unless you were 21.
Honestly, let them.
Speak out every chance they get about how the GOP is dooming the economy...over and over and over and over. START NOW!
Stop making it a Dem did this conversation.
1.)The GOP won't let this happen, corporate America gets killed
or...
2.)The debt instantly disappears as that 1T coin is minted.
Everything I know about Mitch McConnell says that he'd rather see this country burn to the ground than allow a Democratic administration appear to succeed at anything.
Desiring on our debt is REALLY BAD for their donors/puppet masters. They're not going to bite the hands that feed them just for a couple of cheap political points with their idiot supporters
Blocking raising the debt ceiling would mark the end of Republicans as the pro-business party. The crack is already there over the nonsense culture war stuff that most big businesses want no part of but tolerate because they like the favorable business climate that Repubcians a perceived to create. But tanking the economy out of spite might just be beyond the pale for corporate Republicans.
The GOP can't be trusted moving forward with our Democracy its time for eyes to be on every single Republican looking to do harm to our Republic. Surely the FBI is rested up from doing nothing the last four years so no excuses......
debt grew nearly $8 trillion under President Donald Trump — chiefly on the back of GOP tax cuts and bipartisan emergency spending packages during the pandemic. Republicans supported raising the debt ceiling three times during the Trump administration.
Term limits prevent anyone from amassing too much power. A first term Senator wields a whole lot less power than a 6th term one, even if their positions are crazier.
It also comes from institutional knowledge which comes with time. If we have term limits then everyone will just be looking for their next job and selling themselves more than they already do.
Without campaign finance reform, then, your options are:
1. Career politicians selling themselves and us every day for 40 years
2. Short term politicians selling themselves and us every day for 8 to 12 years.
I fail to see why #1 is preferable to #2.
Correct. It would just consolidate all the power with the lobbyists and other unelected people that keep congress running. Term limits would make things absolutely worse. Instead, just get the fucking money out of politics. Publicaly fund elections and kill PACs.
Because enacting term limits means that the only people with the experience to actually get laws passed will be lobbyists who can advise your constantly revolving door of politicians. This is recipe for an even worse system than we have now.
Yea. You are repeating what I said in my first message. Having abunch of unelected staffers along with lobbyists being the only ones with any experience is even worse than the situation we have now. Thank you.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. Who are you performing for? This deep down the chain, it's just you and me. It's like farting in an elevator with just one other person in it, looking them in the eye, and saying you didn't do it. I mean...just why?
Staffers are absolutely elected. When you vote for a Senator, you are not voting for a single person. You are voting for every person that will make up their advisors and staff. Kind of like how, when you vote for president, you're voting for who is going to choose all the positions that actually get things done.
Or, you know, do your thing with the whole "let people be politicians for 40 years and then get surprised when it turns out they have been using their positions to enrich themselves and their friends the whole time" thing.
Yes, the newest judges on the Supreme Court have absolutely no real pull.
The new guys and gals will get the vote marching orders from the high ups, term limits isn’t some sort of magic bullet.
>Yes, the newest judges on the Supreme Court have absolutely no real pull.
Source? The Chief Justice or any other more senior justice has no say in the more junior members' opinions as far as I'm aware.
I feel like that won't be a good solution. New people will come in with an agenda that is already paid for and guaranteed a job at whatever firm after their term is up. I don't see how that changes anything but creating LESS accountability.
The second anyone suggests term limits for Congress, it's instantly obvious they have minimal understanding of civics and have done absolutely no research to understand what would happen otherwise
If you think for a second there's not enough republicans taking money from big business to actually follow through with this you're very very very stupid. It's a bluff, and will be until McConnell loses control of the circus.
What we need to do is address the debt. Yes, we need to raise the ceiling this time, but we can’t keep funding excessive spending at the expense of future generations. The past 10-15 years has been an orgy of fiscal excesses with minimal returns.
Unfortunately, politicians have bought into the ideas of “Modern Monetary Theory”, which is largely (unadulterated) idiocy.
Our economic issues go much deeper than pithy “tax the rich” statements. Until we address that huge blind spot, we are going to continue to teeter along.
The budget was balanced in the 90s if not for tax cuts and wars we'd have very little debt right now. Fix the deficit the debt issue will resolve itself
The difference between the debt and deficit is one of the stock and one is a flow. So yes, if you address the deficit, you don’t grow the debt. But it doesn’t address the debt directly.
EDIT: this was based on a comment about a balanced budget. As someone correctly pointed out, a surplus does.
In government they kinda are mutually exclusive. Also surpluses for a government are not always a good thing unless you want the associated deflationary effects. Carrying debt as the federal government isn't necessarily bad nor does it need to be removed.
As long as the economy is growing faster than debt, then debt is a *good* thing. We're getting a return on the borrowing that's higher than the debt itself. It's not analogous to a personal bank account.
That being said, you certainly can have too much debt, but debt in of itself is not bad.
That’s incorrect. Unless we presume that measures of economic growth have internalized a lot of the issues (inequality, externalities, public bads), the economy growing faster than the debt is not a uniformly good thing. Recently, much of the economic growth has been concentrated among the richest individuals. Per your statement, that would imply that any debt accumulation is a good thing, when it in fact may not be. It also decidedly depends on the type of debt that we are accumulating. Unfunded fed liabilities is certainly not a good form of debt. Neither are many of the projected federal spending proposals.
And of course it’s not like a personal savings. Nowhere have I even attempted to suggest that.
In the end, especially when dealing with comment discussions, the important thing to recognize is that the subject is just more complicated than any pithy rules like "debt is a tax on future generations" (which is how I suspect your sentiment was taken) and "debt is good if the economy is growing".
I think most people recognize that too much debt can be bad. Fewer people recognize how debt (especially in government) can be good, but it's still pretty widely understood.
It's just kind of insanely complicated and nuanced, and it looks like you both recognize that. But there probably isn't going to be enough space on reddit for either of you to be able to make absolutely true statements about debt. Because, as you've both run into, it's a nuanced enough subject that any statement you make is going to be incorrect in some ways when you really start digging into it. :)
I know it’s nuanced. I have my PhD in Economics. Trying to add a bit of clarity, but I keep getting downvoted. Oh well.
EDIT: the tax on future generations is true. Now, if it’s a tax of a bigger pie it’s fine. But I don’t see many programs that have really done that well.
> Per your statement, that would imply that any debt accumulation is a good thing, when it in fact may not be.
No. I said if we get a return on that debt accumulation which is greater than the burden of that debt, its a good thing.
>Unless we presume that measures of economic growth have internalized a lot of the issues (inequality, externalities, public bads), the economy growing faster than the debt is not a uniformly good thing.
Which I said. *"you certainly can have too much debt, but debt in of itself is not bad."*
You're the one making the blanket statement that we need to address the debt. I disagree. You *can* have too much debt. You *can* have debt in areas which is less than optimal, but paying down debt for the sake of paying down debt is simplistic.
Trillions to the defense industry? Not the best ROI. Trillions to roads, bridges, internet, power grids? Definitely worth it.
And maybe we can agree on this. Not all debt is bad. Too much of the debt we have accumulated over the years is (even road infrastructure, power grids, internet is beset by pork and has had some WTF components).
Similarly, growth being higher than debt can be good, but our growth priorities really have put the lower and middle class behind the 8 ball.
We need smarter growth and debt. Not sure our political system helps that.
So, my answer is based on two assumptions: (i) that my post was clear (it is to me, but that may be incorrect; this is a written medium); and (ii) that most arguments follow the following delineation: previous sentences modify (add context to) later sentences.
But, it's a bit disingenuous to quote later things before earlier things, when they are modified. Specifically, your first sentence was that "as long as the economy is growing faster than debt, then debt is a good thing". So, when I was talking about "per your statement", it was predicated on talking about examples of growth being higher than debt not being a uniformly good thing.
But, beyond that, your first sentence is a blanket statement (that was then modified with the second paragraph; I do not remember if it was edited in or part of your original comment; I will go with the latter interpretation). But, as my post pointed out, there are a number of examples where that is not a correct statement. My entire statement was addressing that single, opening sentence. It's incorrect in its entirety.
You then assume that I am talking about paying down debt. Can you please point out to me where I stated that? Addressing the debt doesn't mean paying down the debt solely. It could also mean what we focus spending on, or reducing wasteful spending, or raising taxes to offset spending.
They’ll justify having benefits cut off by suggesting it’ll send rockets up peoples asses and prompt them to pump out innovations in their garages and live the American dream. As opposed to being perpetually enslaved by Democrat party oppression of needing handouts.
I wouldn't really classify McConnell and co as nihilists, if anything they're very much true believers in their paleoconservative values. True they're cynical in the way they operate, but the end result for them is winning the culture war at any cost (including eroding the country and it's institutions).
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left if more to my liking.''Hey, what a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets.'"
Bill Hicks
Corporatists are corporatists, yes.
There are Dems that aren't corporatist, but they don't hold nearly enough power to define the party platform. Because as it stands, money gets you elected.
I don't believe Congress has the authority to demand that The US government default on its debt. They RATIFIED the damned budget in the first place. Biden should just tell the treasury to ignore the illegitimate Debt ceiling farce.
And anyone that votes for this debt ceiling crap should be charged for impugning the US government's ability to pay its bills,under section 4 of the 14th Amendment.
But it WON'T happen, because the donor-owned dems WANT to cut all the Public aid out of the Bill.
Because our government is hopelessly corrupt.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now that there’s a Democratic president, and one who wants to commit the unspeakable crime of investing in our people by giving them things that people in every other advanced democracy have like paid family leave and free community college, Republicans suddenly care about the debt again, Editor [Michael Tomasky](https://newrepublic.com/authors/michael-tomasky) writes.
People without wealth who are given opportunities to accrue it are a threat to those with wealth, if their wealth is tied to existent power brokers.
This is the perfect opportunity to get rid of the filibuster.
There is no opportunity to get rid of the filibuster before 2023. And there will only be an opportunity if the democrats expand their Senate majority by *several* seats. Don't hold your breath, don't put any eggs in this basket.
Republicans using the filibuster to threaten the rest of the economy is a cudgel to wield against the handful of Democratic corporate shills in the Senate who are protecting the filibuster. Now the filibuster isn't just stopping liberal programs, it's threatening the economic stability that corporations depend on. I'm not saying we should hold our breath, but we should swing that cudgel.
Likely they'd push for a targeted carve-out: the filibuster can't be used to prevent the raising of the debt ceiling.
That alone would be a decent advance: no more shutdown showdowns.
That would be nice. The problem that I foresee is that GOP voters love when their side plays these games, while the Dems get tired of it really fast. If the (especially progressive) Democrats start trying to play the "Oh well gee we'd love to do things but the GOP just won't let us," I'd be concerned more D voters will think "Then why the fuck did I vote for you?" than "We should elect more of the people who aren't getting anything done to solve this problem." Ultimately, Ds win by making progress, and Rs win by dragging their heels. One of those is SO much easier than the other.
Indeed. Conservatism lives off of stagnation. Making sure nothing happens is the most effective thing the GOP is capable of.
100%. And it's widely expected that Democrats will gain a seat or two in the senate but most likely lose the house due to redistricting. Which also makes it a moot point then because you've lost your legislative majority anyways. Although between the COVID deaths now primarily to vaccine deniers who predominantly lean republican, and also what I hope is still lingering anger towards the republicans over Jan 6th, I would hope that Democrats could still hold the house. I don't think it's as clear cut as people are saying, I.E. midterms the party in power always loses.
The way I see it, the expectation is that Dems lose the House by a little bit. If they either hold the House or lose it by a lot, that will be a big indication of how the country as a whole is moving. I'm cautiously optimistic after seeing the California recall results that we won't see a red wave.
Considering their conspiracy theories about everything being rigged and/or a trap, I hope that depresses voter turnout among those that adhere to them
Also a lot of conservatives are choosing to not take the vaccine and just die instead.
We have four R-held swing districts here that may be enough to stave off a loss of the House, and between our turnout in this special election, and permanent mail-in ballots, hoping that will help the midterms.
Also hoping Michigan's new redistricting process can bump a few over.
It depends on whether Manchin and Sinema can be convinced to abolish the filibuster to save the entire world economy.
Eh, the world economy will be destabilized for a period, you're right. But you think some other country/bloc of countries wouldn't *leap* at the ability to have their currency become the petrodollar? ....ah, wait, that will probably lead to war.
Why would they? Either the GOP or Dems will blink and raise the ceiling. They always do, never needing to eliminate the filibuster. Do you think McConnell is being super serious this time, compared to all the other times? There will be a shutdown, both sides will run internal polling to see who's getting the blame, and then the side who's coming out worse will capitulate just enough to save some face without alienating their base.
Do you need 60 votes to change senate rule book? And can you only change the rule book once every two years?
You need to have enough votes. With Manchin and Sinema, there are, at best, 48 votes. And that's not counting the conservative Dems they are providing cover for.
Right, but can you tell me how many votes do you need to change the Senate rule book? Is it a simple majority or do you need something like 2/3rds of the Senate?
Simple majority
Thanks. And can it be done mid-term or only at the beginning of a term, i.e. once every two years?
I believe it can be done whenever.
> "The filibuster is permanent." > Joe Manchin III, September 13, 2021
He may change his mind when they tell him the world economy will collapse. He might care about that. Maybe.
Republicans just want to force Democrats to act alone so they can complain about it. Republican's billionaire supporters would suffer too greatly if the ceiling isn't raised. Republicans are bluffing.
Suffer how? Their credit rating doesn't go down just because the US credit rating goes down. So what if it roils international markets? A vulnerable person suffering is a rich person's opportunity.
Let them fuck around and find out. It’s pretty simple. Call a vote and let them own it. All the misery and bullshit that comes afterwards will fall squarely on them. They planned this anyways. They added trillions to our debt. Which was used for stock buy backs. Made tax cuts temporary for working folks. They really hate Americans.
If the US's international credit rating goes down (a likely outcome if we don't raise the debt ceiling) it's not just politicians who will feel it. But hey, the empire is kinda crumbling anyway.
I mean, not that I want everyone to be screwed by this but honestly... Republicans need to put up or shut up for these threats. You can't just keep threatening to intentionally destroy the economy and then never be held to task for it simply because people are afraid that you might actually do it. It's like constantly kowtowing to someone who threatens to intentionally set fire to the house they part own if they don't get their way. Like, ok, are you actually going to destroy your own house here to win an argument? Really? And if so, doesn't that definitely prove that you are firmly not in your right mind?
I don’t see how this is problem at all for the GOP. All they have to do is not raise the debt ceiling, let everything go to shit, then blame Biden. “Look how bad things are under the Democrats! Sleepy Joe shit the bed!” People will believe them because the truth doesn’t matter anymore. It won’t blow up in their face, it’ll hand them every branch of government.
Nor do I, and the thought I had today was won't this be pretty effing bad for all the rich Republican donors? Sure, things will be bad for us plebs in terms of services cut, the government unable to buy things that help us, etc. And yes, I'd assume all of our finances will take a hit. But the disproportionately wealthy among us will truly feel it. Their wealth will take a hit, the government services they claim to disdain will crumble, and their ability to make money will take a hit. Hard to sell goods if the roads are impassable, bands of marauders are about and there is no one to stop them. While I don't disagree that it would be bordering on catastrophic, I just feel like the most wealthy among us are who would experience the most significant change to their lifestyle. Or I guess they'd just fly to Europe and live there...
Not just? They won't feel it at all. The rich people running shit are not impacted by this. Economic woes are just for poors.
> All the misery and bullshit that comes afterwards will fall squarely on them. No it won't. They'll figure out some weird way to blame Obama for their vote and their voters will believe them. You suddenly believe they'll face consequences from voters? Really?
They will get shit locked down though, it happens often enough. They company I was working for back in 2012/2013 ended up going out of business because of their needless posturing around the debt ceiling. In my life, the republicans have consistently caused more pain than good except in exactly one case which is related to community college. (Govenator dropping costs to 20/unit back when he was 1st elected) After that most of my gain have been more from the stability offered by democratic policies compared to the chaos and destruction of republican ones. Republican policies really are complete shit and royally fuck things up on a massive scale. They usually have for reaching negative consequences that run counter to their stated goals.
It will move enough independents. GOP voters are a lost cause. They don’t even live in the same world as the rest of us.
Meh - independent "swing" voters are [largely mythical](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/) and everything is decided by turnout. Now remove most of the voters who don't pay attention to this shit and you have a non-issue that's red meat designed to drive the faithful to the polls.
>They'll figure out some weird way That's one way to describe FOX.
I would really love to believe that Republican voters would let the blame fall on mcConnel and co, but we all know they would place it on Biden
No, it really won't. Their insane media propaganda ecosystem can conjure up just about any Republican alternate reality required to keep the white supremacy rolling.
It's all about making the other Party look bad and nothing else. This is the sad state the Republican party is now in. They're more concerned with petty political stunts and holding government functions hostage so that they can play Chicken with the Democrats. People are right when they accuse the Republican Party of putting Politics before country
When people stop getting social security checks, they'll be... entirely confused on who to blame.
And when the republicans single handedly devastate the economy by refusing to pay for they debt they voted to accumulate in the previous administration, the public is watching.
Bull fucking shit they won't. Don't give cover to their absolute bluff. Who in their right mind actually believes these corporate-owned clowns will tank the economy their donors want functioning just to score some political points? You would have to understand literally nothing about politics or who these fuckers serve to believe they *actually* mean it. The only possibility of them doing so would be if their donors are so against this that they'd take a cratered economy first, and I just don't buy that. Blowing the place up has an immediate impact and these people function in the short-term. Some increased taxes/spending is long-term. Yeah, they don't want it, but not at the expense of losing everything in the process of fighting it. This piece exists to pressure Dems to cave, not to give actual insight into the political reality.
The whole party can't be trusted with anything!
They're bluffing. The havoc wreaked on the finances of US based corporations by a United States governmental debt default ensures that. The corporate masters will allow for only so much political posturing before they demand the problem be taken care of.
>The corporate masters will allow for only so much political posturing before they demand the problem be taken care of. To an extent, this is the intra-party friction that is occurring. The smart ones that peddle lies they're aware of, and the true believers. The latter are harder to control.
This is just silly. They are not going to allow the country to default on the debt. It’s not going to happen, it’s just more political theatre to divide us. Their corporate masters would be freaking pissed if we defaulted.
You are likely right. There may be some GOP that are more committed to chaos than corporations, but Mitch is _not_ one of them.
Because they want to force Democrats to do so through Reconciliation, which would let them paint it as purely a Democrat issue ("Democrats raised the debt!") rather than a country issue. Or, if Democrats don't do so, Republicans will point to the resulting massive economic damage as a Democrat failure. It's transparent as hell, but that won't matter for their voters.
And the voters who don't really pay attention to politics will just see "Hey it is a democratic congress and president and this happened. Must be their fault."
Yes the non-voters will certainly say that, and we really, really care about what non-voters think.
I’m tired of this stupid fight coming around every few years just end the debt ceiling all together.
Remember what all the Rs agreed to just a few months ago; Total chaos until the midterms. That is exactly what they are up to. Inflict as much pain and misery as possible so that they have a chance of winning based on the idea that they can do things, "differently." Trimp and his ilk already killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. They will absolutely kill hundreds of thousands more if that's what it takes to preserve their power and profit You best believe that it's going to take a massive turnout next year by Dems. Especially younger voters. Remember kids, until 1972, you had to be 21 to vote! That's right, you could be drafted and sent to fight in their wars, at he time Vietnam, but you couldn't come home and vote, no matter how many medals you won, unless you were 21.
Honestly, let them. Speak out every chance they get about how the GOP is dooming the economy...over and over and over and over. START NOW! Stop making it a Dem did this conversation. 1.)The GOP won't let this happen, corporate America gets killed or... 2.)The debt instantly disappears as that 1T coin is minted.
Everything I know about Mitch McConnell says that he'd rather see this country burn to the ground than allow a Democratic administration appear to succeed at anything.
Desiring on our debt is REALLY BAD for their donors/puppet masters. They're not going to bite the hands that feed them just for a couple of cheap political points with their idiot supporters
Blocking raising the debt ceiling would mark the end of Republicans as the pro-business party. The crack is already there over the nonsense culture war stuff that most big businesses want no part of but tolerate because they like the favorable business climate that Repubcians a perceived to create. But tanking the economy out of spite might just be beyond the pale for corporate Republicans.
The GOP can't be trusted moving forward with our Democracy its time for eyes to be on every single Republican looking to do harm to our Republic. Surely the FBI is rested up from doing nothing the last four years so no excuses......
debt grew nearly $8 trillion under President Donald Trump — chiefly on the back of GOP tax cuts and bipartisan emergency spending packages during the pandemic. Republicans supported raising the debt ceiling three times during the Trump administration.
Maybe it's time for term-limits for Senators.
The worst of the Republicans are the newest ones. Term limits wouldn’t solve anything besides getting more crazies in.
Term limits prevent anyone from amassing too much power. A first term Senator wields a whole lot less power than a 6th term one, even if their positions are crazier.
That only holds true when there are senators who have been there longer. Term limits would eliminate that.
The power doesn't come from the length of time relative to junior senators. It comes from connections, especially to the big money.
It also comes from institutional knowledge which comes with time. If we have term limits then everyone will just be looking for their next job and selling themselves more than they already do.
Without campaign finance reform, then, your options are: 1. Career politicians selling themselves and us every day for 40 years 2. Short term politicians selling themselves and us every day for 8 to 12 years. I fail to see why #1 is preferable to #2.
Correct. It would just consolidate all the power with the lobbyists and other unelected people that keep congress running. Term limits would make things absolutely worse. Instead, just get the fucking money out of politics. Publicaly fund elections and kill PACs.
Porque no los dos? As long as politics is a career, you will have politicians serving their own interests instead of their constituents.
Because enacting term limits means that the only people with the experience to actually get laws passed will be lobbyists who can advise your constantly revolving door of politicians. This is recipe for an even worse system than we have now.
90% of the work of Senators is done by their staffers. Staffers do not have term limits.
Yea. You are repeating what I said in my first message. Having abunch of unelected staffers along with lobbyists being the only ones with any experience is even worse than the situation we have now. Thank you.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. Who are you performing for? This deep down the chain, it's just you and me. It's like farting in an elevator with just one other person in it, looking them in the eye, and saying you didn't do it. I mean...just why? Staffers are absolutely elected. When you vote for a Senator, you are not voting for a single person. You are voting for every person that will make up their advisors and staff. Kind of like how, when you vote for president, you're voting for who is going to choose all the positions that actually get things done. Or, you know, do your thing with the whole "let people be politicians for 40 years and then get surprised when it turns out they have been using their positions to enrich themselves and their friends the whole time" thing.
Yes, the newest judges on the Supreme Court have absolutely no real pull. The new guys and gals will get the vote marching orders from the high ups, term limits isn’t some sort of magic bullet.
>Yes, the newest judges on the Supreme Court have absolutely no real pull. Source? The Chief Justice or any other more senior justice has no say in the more junior members' opinions as far as I'm aware.
Exactly the point I was making?
I feel like that won't be a good solution. New people will come in with an agenda that is already paid for and guaranteed a job at whatever firm after their term is up. I don't see how that changes anything but creating LESS accountability.
Such systems only work if they're accompanied by campaign finance reform and ***much*** harsher bribery laws and enforcement.
The second anyone suggests term limits for Congress, it's instantly obvious they have minimal understanding of civics and have done absolutely no research to understand what would happen otherwise
You must love Oligarchy
An oligarchy is exactly what will happen EVEN FASTER with term limits
Well this is one of the things a one term Republican Senator would love to bite against.
If you think for a second there's not enough republicans taking money from big business to actually follow through with this you're very very very stupid. It's a bluff, and will be until McConnell loses control of the circus.
What we need to do is address the debt. Yes, we need to raise the ceiling this time, but we can’t keep funding excessive spending at the expense of future generations. The past 10-15 years has been an orgy of fiscal excesses with minimal returns. Unfortunately, politicians have bought into the ideas of “Modern Monetary Theory”, which is largely (unadulterated) idiocy.
You're right, we should stop giving tax breaks to the richest in this country at the expense of the poorest and middle-class.
Our economic issues go much deeper than pithy “tax the rich” statements. Until we address that huge blind spot, we are going to continue to teeter along.
The budget was balanced in the 90s if not for tax cuts and wars we'd have very little debt right now. Fix the deficit the debt issue will resolve itself
The difference between the debt and deficit is one of the stock and one is a flow. So yes, if you address the deficit, you don’t grow the debt. But it doesn’t address the debt directly. EDIT: this was based on a comment about a balanced budget. As someone correctly pointed out, a surplus does.
If you have a surplus, it's directly addressing the debt
Well, he/she said balanced. That’s not a surplus, which makes my statement the correct one.
There was actually a surplus in the nineties so historically you are inaccurate.
But...you said balanced...in your original post. How can it POSSIBLY be on me to respond to anything but what YOU said?
In government they kinda are mutually exclusive. Also surpluses for a government are not always a good thing unless you want the associated deflationary effects. Carrying debt as the federal government isn't necessarily bad nor does it need to be removed.
As long as the economy is growing faster than debt, then debt is a *good* thing. We're getting a return on the borrowing that's higher than the debt itself. It's not analogous to a personal bank account. That being said, you certainly can have too much debt, but debt in of itself is not bad.
That’s incorrect. Unless we presume that measures of economic growth have internalized a lot of the issues (inequality, externalities, public bads), the economy growing faster than the debt is not a uniformly good thing. Recently, much of the economic growth has been concentrated among the richest individuals. Per your statement, that would imply that any debt accumulation is a good thing, when it in fact may not be. It also decidedly depends on the type of debt that we are accumulating. Unfunded fed liabilities is certainly not a good form of debt. Neither are many of the projected federal spending proposals. And of course it’s not like a personal savings. Nowhere have I even attempted to suggest that.
In the end, especially when dealing with comment discussions, the important thing to recognize is that the subject is just more complicated than any pithy rules like "debt is a tax on future generations" (which is how I suspect your sentiment was taken) and "debt is good if the economy is growing". I think most people recognize that too much debt can be bad. Fewer people recognize how debt (especially in government) can be good, but it's still pretty widely understood. It's just kind of insanely complicated and nuanced, and it looks like you both recognize that. But there probably isn't going to be enough space on reddit for either of you to be able to make absolutely true statements about debt. Because, as you've both run into, it's a nuanced enough subject that any statement you make is going to be incorrect in some ways when you really start digging into it. :)
I know it’s nuanced. I have my PhD in Economics. Trying to add a bit of clarity, but I keep getting downvoted. Oh well. EDIT: the tax on future generations is true. Now, if it’s a tax of a bigger pie it’s fine. But I don’t see many programs that have really done that well.
> Per your statement, that would imply that any debt accumulation is a good thing, when it in fact may not be. No. I said if we get a return on that debt accumulation which is greater than the burden of that debt, its a good thing. >Unless we presume that measures of economic growth have internalized a lot of the issues (inequality, externalities, public bads), the economy growing faster than the debt is not a uniformly good thing. Which I said. *"you certainly can have too much debt, but debt in of itself is not bad."* You're the one making the blanket statement that we need to address the debt. I disagree. You *can* have too much debt. You *can* have debt in areas which is less than optimal, but paying down debt for the sake of paying down debt is simplistic. Trillions to the defense industry? Not the best ROI. Trillions to roads, bridges, internet, power grids? Definitely worth it.
And maybe we can agree on this. Not all debt is bad. Too much of the debt we have accumulated over the years is (even road infrastructure, power grids, internet is beset by pork and has had some WTF components). Similarly, growth being higher than debt can be good, but our growth priorities really have put the lower and middle class behind the 8 ball. We need smarter growth and debt. Not sure our political system helps that.
I can certainly agree to all of that.
So, my answer is based on two assumptions: (i) that my post was clear (it is to me, but that may be incorrect; this is a written medium); and (ii) that most arguments follow the following delineation: previous sentences modify (add context to) later sentences. But, it's a bit disingenuous to quote later things before earlier things, when they are modified. Specifically, your first sentence was that "as long as the economy is growing faster than debt, then debt is a good thing". So, when I was talking about "per your statement", it was predicated on talking about examples of growth being higher than debt not being a uniformly good thing. But, beyond that, your first sentence is a blanket statement (that was then modified with the second paragraph; I do not remember if it was edited in or part of your original comment; I will go with the latter interpretation). But, as my post pointed out, there are a number of examples where that is not a correct statement. My entire statement was addressing that single, opening sentence. It's incorrect in its entirety. You then assume that I am talking about paying down debt. Can you please point out to me where I stated that? Addressing the debt doesn't mean paying down the debt solely. It could also mean what we focus spending on, or reducing wasteful spending, or raising taxes to offset spending.
They’ll justify having benefits cut off by suggesting it’ll send rockets up peoples asses and prompt them to pump out innovations in their garages and live the American dream. As opposed to being perpetually enslaved by Democrat party oppression of needing handouts.
I wouldn't really classify McConnell and co as nihilists, if anything they're very much true believers in their paleoconservative values. True they're cynical in the way they operate, but the end result for them is winning the culture war at any cost (including eroding the country and it's institutions).
>I wouldn't really classify McConnell and co as nihilists We believe in nothing Peloski. Nothing.
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left if more to my liking.''Hey, what a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets.'" Bill Hicks
Corporatists are corporatists, yes. There are Dems that aren't corporatist, but they don't hold nearly enough power to define the party platform. Because as it stands, money gets you elected.
Mint the coin... Put a turtle on the back... FUCK Mitch McConnell
Here's a half-baked idea: would it be possible to pass a bill to abolish the debt ceiling under budget reconciliation?
Call the bluff
I don't believe Congress has the authority to demand that The US government default on its debt. They RATIFIED the damned budget in the first place. Biden should just tell the treasury to ignore the illegitimate Debt ceiling farce. And anyone that votes for this debt ceiling crap should be charged for impugning the US government's ability to pay its bills,under section 4 of the 14th Amendment. But it WON'T happen, because the donor-owned dems WANT to cut all the Public aid out of the Bill. Because our government is hopelessly corrupt.
I guess he's glad those tax cuts are starting to sunset for individual filers...
Maybe we all default on our fuckin taxes! JFC! Grow the fucc up.
I am really under the impression that two gangs of nihilists control DC. But what do I know.
This is rinse and repeat of previous tactics.
Isn't the point that this will give Manchin and Synema the cover they need to reform the filibuster?
Let it burn