Bipartisan Lawmakers Preparing Plan to Avert Debt-Ceiling Crisis

It’s the GOP that is threatening to shut down the government.

The answer to raising the debt ceiling is easy. Raise it! With nothing attached to that. Just raise it.

Anyone who is trying to make that conditional on something else is the one who is holding the situation hostage. The GOP.

 

If you’re scared to answer just say so

 

How many balanced budgets with a Dem Congress? How many Dem Presidents forced to sign Republican budgets which produced surpluses? How many Dem Congresses and Dem Presidents with deficits below $200B and falling rapidly? How many Dem tax bills that produced 10% and 15% revenue increases?

You missed the referral to Clinton who had to sign on to the Gingrich/Kasich budgets, welfare reform and tax rate cuts?

Now your turn.

 

How is it my turn when you’re still ducking my Q?

 

It's the GOP trying to come to an agreement. It is Biden and the Dems refusing to negotiate and come to a deal. It's real easy just sit down and come to an agreement LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. Biden is in violation of the budget act for not having his budget in the hands of the Congress. The debt ceiling is a DIRECT result of our spending, they are DIRECTLY attached. They should be acted on together else we will be right back here again in six months with you making the same argument to raise it again.

 

Maybe it’d be better to avoid the train barreling down the tracks before getting into the weeds with “negotiations”?

 

I answered it Bill Clinton who was forced to sign the Rep budgets and policies.

Now your turn.

How many balanced budgets with a Dem Congress? How many Dem Presidents forced to sign Republican budgets which produced surpluses? How many Dem Congresses and Dem Presidents with deficits below $200B and falling rapidly? How many Dem tax bills that produced 10% and 15% revenue increases?

 

Maybe it'd be better if we stop shoveling coal into that train while we try to stop it.

 

Bill Clinton wasn’t a Republican president. Should I ask again?

 

You are not very good at this are you. For starters, the argument is why does not the GOP simply raise the debt limit. It is easy and it helps solve the immideate crisis. Instead, the GOP are tying to link budget cuts to the debt limit and that didn't work out so well in 2011, did it.

It was called the Line Item Veto which was ruled constituitonal. It was proposed that such a provisioin, if allowed, would have balanced the budget in 10 years or so.

Maybe not in the US House of Representatives, but it is something the GOP has been working on since the 1990s. Again, this is not a Dems-only thing. That is a copout political argument, but Trump literally increased the debt so much that the GOP raised the debt ceiling three times in his administration without any fuss. And that was the point. Again, why now use a different tactic? the same tactic failed in 2011 and Republicans are not learning from history, are they?

Real Wages have been stagnant for over four decades now, mostly due to the FED while living costs rose constantly. This happened in both parties in their administrations. It just didn't start happening in the last 21 months. But inflation is a pain, yet the economy is mixed at best. We have low unemployment and a stable job growth. Pesonal income is falling because of the rising costs not taxes. And tax cuts are not going to do a damn thing to help them. Want to help them and cause inflation to go down, get rid of the damn tariffs especially China, get the Trans-Pacific Agreement passed and enforced, which includes China BTW. Increased Trade and increased FDI will improve our economy bar none.

There should be no negotiations on the debt limit. There should be negotiations on the budget with a GOP led house and a Democratic led Senate. Again, compromise, but the party base such as you don't want that. So, here we are.

Not if you read Sen. Scott's Plan or the Republican study committee. And yes, they want to cut taxes. This is not a question of if, but when. The GOP is expending all of its political capitol on this debt ceiling nonsense and will not even have enough for next year.

It won't because it will be part of the DoD budget. All military aid programs are in that part of the budget process. I guess accounting is not your forte even if it is government accounting.

yes, but if we do that, the GOP will lose in the midwest and the dairybelt of the US. And that means losing control of Congress and the Senate. \

In Canada, not a single farmer gets subsidies whatsoever. Now, with Trump, they will undercut the domestic production with cheaper prices because of our subsidies. That hurts Canada more than you realize.

No, it's not. Farm subsidies are separate from SNAP. SNAP is assistance to low-income families. It is paid by the USDA, but it is not farm subsidies. It is literally managed by the states in state block grants to then pay out the SNAP benefits.

No it's not. Senator Ernst's family farm received nearly a half million dollars in farm subsidies over a period of time. She is not going to cut that cash cow to her family farm no matter what.

don't need to. I have the US Chamber of Commerce and a few other organizations that do this for me.

You can't sell federal property slowly. It is big news no matter where it is or how much. But it is usually done quietly and through bidding to the lowest bidder. It is literally against the law and the core principles of the US Constitution that the government cannot make a profit motive for anything.

 

Interest payments is not what we are talking about here. Second, it is not Joe Biden, it is the Treasury Secretary and has made accounting provisions to make the current payments paid on time.

You mean what you write all the time with "fake news?"

It was not necessary then, was it? Debt Ceilings are raised when we were at the limit. We were not at the limit until the end of 2022 and by then, the GOP would not vote for such a bill straight up.

McConnell recently has not done that, but he has done it in the past. So has McCarthy. Both know that making such an argument is very unpopular, even among their establishment base. But MAGA crowds don't care and want it anyway. Then you have that House Republican study committee who made the arguments. Then you have Sen. Rick Scott's plan who makes those arguments, supported by Sen. Johnson and a few others in the Senate.

The only negotiations that will go on is going to be the GOP house and the Democratic Senate. And with the GOP, you guys are not even on the same page with three different proposals out there from capping spending other than DoD to 2023 or 2024 levels and a couple of others.

There is one proposal to use any unused state Covid Funds to help pay for future expenditures, but that amount is not very much, less than $250 billion and will not sustain the budgetary process beyond one fiscal year. That does have bipartisan support from what I have been told, except for those Republican states who want to hold on to that money and use it for other things.

 

That is what they are doing now. Yellen is not funding the G fund in the TSP account and will eventually have to suspend payments to the pension fund creating a substantial liability for pension goers if this goes on too long. Like I said, a simple raise the debt limit without any conditions is the immediate solution to this crisis.

 

funny how republicans are holding a gun up to the economy and threatening to kill it.... but then want to blame it on dems

 

Fake News. I'm awesome at this.

They will with a little trim on yet to be spent discretionary spending. If Dems didn't want to be in this spot they shouldn't have planned on breaching the debt limit rather than raising the debt limit while they controlled both Houses.

Fake News. It was ruled unconstitutional, and it's not part of this discussion, only constitutional means are under consider.

Fake New. Real wages are up over 50% over the last 40 years.

​

Well tough ****, you live in a constitutional liberal democracy not a dictatorship.

Exactly. The GOP will agree to raise the limit with the compromise of a couple cents on the dollar of yet to be spent discretionary spending over that last couple months of the fiscal year.

Yes, while Dems controlled both Houses they planned to spend in excess of the debt limit, but, didn't raise the debt limit while they held both Houses, so, now they will have to compromise, just a bit, with the new leadership that Americans elected.

Fake News. It's not on the table, both McConnell and McCarthy have made that perfectly clear. And apparently Biden has forgotten that all the Scott Plan is, is very similar to the Old Biden Plan that Biden introduced while he was in Congress.

{Yawn - Concern trolling}

 

No. It is the only leverage they have to get any concessions from the left, who I would say spends like drunken sailors, but drunken sailors are spending their own money, so it's their own problem. Our pols are not.

If you are capable of basic math, and understand the process through which laws are passed, signed or vetoed, and then hypothetically subject to a veto override, you understand that with divided government, even if the House GOP can get good legislation passed, Biden wouldn't sign it even if he thought it was a good idea, because in today's hyper partisan tribal mentality environment, him signing a bill perceived to have originated with the GOP would be perceived as him being a traitor to his tribe. Regardless of what was in it, so they have to use what little leverage they have, and to give that up under these circumstances, when we CAN get cuts through because we all know Biden will have no actual option of allowing the country to go into default, would be stupidity bordering on outright malpractice.

 

So you agree with the GOP’s idea of holding the country’s credit rating hostage. Ok.
And by the way, historically it is Republican administrations that spend like drunken sailors.

Republicans only pretend to care about the deficit when a Dem president is in the White House. Under trump the deficit and debt exploded, and the debt ceiling was raised without any issue.

 

I'm not some partisan hack, or fanboi. I've been screaming about spending, deficits, and debt for DECADES now, without a care in the world what tribe the current Oval occupier belongs to. I am more ideologically aligned with the GOP at least on paper as it regards fiscal issues, but that doesn't mean I won't (or don't) call them out for it. You may or may not remember, or even noticed in the first place, but before the Obergefell verdict came down, I was one of the biggest proponents of same-sex marriage on the entire forum and was not at all shy about it.

And like Bruen, I think the case was settled properly.

 

And she can pay bills as the come due, it's a simple matter of fiscal policy and a simple matter for Biden to follow the LAW and submit his budget and spending request and work with Congress so we don't have to raise or debt limit forever and forever. And if the TSP funding must be cut so be it the federal workers will have to up their contributions and deal with the short falls as the rest of us have with our accounts. Perhaps they will then agree the budget has to be dealt with we can't keep kicking the can down the road.

 

Wages are up!
So is productivity.
Who pockets the money in the middle?

 

Stop posting yesterday’s dollars!

By the way, Reagan’s 1983 deficit was ONLY $208 billion

Yeah, but an item you’ve purchased for $2.08 in 1983, same item cost $6.11 today.

Note; No one can fool me with numbers

 

Is that your excuse now? YOU cited Clinton I cited Bush whose numbers are older? Try again to actually address what I posted.

The total deficit for that period was 1.3 trillion. With Bush as President and a Republican Congress the $400 deficit following the 2001 recession was back down to $161B and falling fast into another surplus, what is your complaint? And "spent" and "deficit" are two different things. The first two years of the Trump/Rep created $1.4 in deficit spending. And I agree we need more fiscal conservatives and fewer Dems and Rinos in Congress. Do you think you will get more of them on the Dem side or on the Rep side?

 

You haven't spent much time around SNAP card holders, have you? In my last job before I became disabled, I ran my own company where I wholesaled e-cigs to retailers such as gas stations, 7-11s, etc. I spent a lot of time in a lot of sketchy stores in some not so nice areas, where virtually 100% of their customers (let's call it 90% to be more reasonable) are SNAP users. Whenever I was there, these folks were always buying lottery cards by the fistful, cigarettes (which are not supposed to be used to purchase some things, but it's all in how the clerk or computer enters the items, now isn't it?), and other sundries that they could get less expensively by using a normal grocery.

You would think these folks would do everything they could to squeeze every dollar they have until it cries, but you would be wrong. Always with the latest, blinged out phones (except for the old men), fashionably dressed (especially the younger women), driving nice, newer cars, and a large portion are smokers, which is their own business, but (thanks mostly to government interference) they are expensive, even here in Florida. Though about half the price they were back in NY. Some years ago, I happened to be in line behind a woman paying for her groceries with physical food stamps (the EBT card of old people) and happened to notice her loading her groceries that I helped pay for into a relatively new Caddilac, and then drive to a home that today costs over half a million dollars. This would have been roughly 1994.

Most EBT users are gaming the system, virtually all of them intend to never work a real job again, having grown quite happy with the cash and benefits they are getting straight out of my paycheck, and I'm as sick of it now as I was back in the day of food stamps, if not moreso. One thing many to most of them are not is 'low income', at least compared to the aspects of their lives I was able to witness. Whether they are getting money from illegal sources, off the books, or whatever is enabling their lifestyles I cannot say, but most are not in any way 'low income'.

I've seen people interviewed on TV about this or that government program that has been proposed to be cut or eliminated are invariably smoking cigs during their interviews, and frequently are in very nice residences, nicely decorated and furnished, along with the latest and greatest big screen TVs, game systems, and so forth. I have to chuckle at the idea of eliminating a government program, as if that ever happens... the Income Tax itself, the vilest method of taxation ever devised was supposed to be temporary. Property taxes are even worse, as they amount to a life-long bill that never can be paid off, always increases, and in many cases, eventually forces seniors out of homes they have owned and lived in for decades.

We need to eliminate all assistance programs for able-bodied and able-minded adults, and those temporarily out of work for whatever reason can actually do some work for our government, doing whatever needs to be done in exchange for those benefits, while they simultaneously find another job, because I would limit them to no more than 3-months at any one time, and no more than a year cumulative in their entire life.

We also need to completely scrap our tax policies, eliminate the income tax in favor of user fees for things like roads, parks, public transportation, and yes, even public education whenever user fees are possible to reasonably be calculated- for example, changing from a gas tax to weight/mile fees for all vehicles, including commercial ones that would simply share those costs with their customers by adding it to either the base price they charge, or as a separate line item. "Corporate taxes" should also be listed as separate line items on consumer invoices, because most people are under the illusion that they don't pay those, when in truth it's just hidden from them.

Making sure they see them might make people finally realize the actual amount of their money that is being transferred to Uncle, and if we also ended withholding, instead making people actually send in cash money to pay for taxes that simply disappear into the fine print on their pay stubs that most people neither pay attention to, nor understand, all of a sudden people who like increasing taxes on other people would come around and realize just how bloated our system of governance actually is. Ending withholding would create millions of Republicans overnight. It would also do a lot of damage to the government's income, which I am fine with, and it is a beast in need of at least a bit of strangling. The single most important function of government, defense of the Nation and her borders, has been relegated to this thing we do because we've always done it, we do it poorly (can you say Mexican border?), though to be clear I am NOT talking about the military, or even rank and file in organizations like CBP, and need to end so much government that the buildings themselves will be seeping blood before we are done.

 

You still don’t get it……

You’re comparing actual dollars from two different periods, for example;

Bush’s 2004 Deficit amounted to $413 billion

Obama’s 2015 Deficit amounted to $442 billion

ACTUAL DOLLARS, Bush’s 2004 deficit is lower than Obama’s 2015 Deficit

However,

AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP, Obama’s 2015 deficit (2.4%) is significantly lower than Bush’s 2004 Deficit (3.4%)

2015 DOLLARS, Bush’s 2004 $413 billion Deficit equates to $518 billion, thus, higher than Obama’s 2015 Deficit

 

The people who created, built, and sold the technology to the people who actually own said tech that allows a single person to do the work it used to take four people a month or more to do in a single afternoon, and with less individual effort than any of the four back in the day. Who do you think it should go to? I can get a request from a customer, using a piece of software design an entire datacenter (if necessary, in the real world it's not usually quite that comprehensive), generate a quotation, and have it back on my customer's virtual 'desk' within a few hours, something that even 20 years ago would have taken days (at best) and 30 or more years ago, would have taken weeks.

It seems like you think given the increase in productivity I just demonstrated that I should be receiving the pay of four people for several weeks work for what it took me a few hours to do, something that is nonsensical. While it would sure be nice to get a month's pay of four people for half a day's worth of work on my part, that's not how things work.

 

No you don't get it even trying to attribute something to me I did not say.

His peak deficit during the 2001 recession recovery and he and the Reps rapidly brought it down to that paltry $161B for FY2007.

That was the Rep sequestration and austerity deficit.
Obama's peak deficit during the 2008 recession recovery was $1,400B for FY2009. That was just TWO YEARS after the last Bush/Rep $161 so feel free to explain how that was due to inflation over two years. And Obama and the Dems kept it over $1,000B for the next three years until the Reps forced the sequestration and austerity bills.

Do you REALLY think you can get away with this cherry picking? 2015 was a Rep Congress and Rep budges and you compare Bush's WORST deficit with the BEST during the Obama term. What percent of GDP was the Bush/Rep $161B deficit that they handed the Dems?