House Republicans are moving forward with plans to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by $4 trillion as part of a larger plan to advance President Trump’s tax agenda.
Any member of the Democrats voting for this should be exposed and thrown to the voters.
Chuck Schumer will be begging Democrats to pass it through by Wednesday. He’ll say that any debt increase is better than no debt increase.
Oh sweet!
Well that get us 1 trillionaire, or will it be divided up so we get 4 trillionaire? Or dare I say, a dozen billionaires…?
What a surprise this is. /s
I mean why stop there let’s go 999 trillion!
∞ trillion
Cause that’s how much more the debt will go up cause of the tax cuts to the rich.
We are about to have to print million dollar bills aren’t we. I believe it was Zimbabwe that has crazy bill amounts?
Don’t they cry every time Dems are in office and try to raise the debt ceiling, which is in itself an unnecessary procedure.
Yes.
Yeah, but the astroturfing botfarms are only activated to foment “oohh aahh yeah gotta be responsible with our children’s debt” opinions when it’s the other way around. And of course all big “news” entertainment papers and shows are in on it because of access and money. I mean, they’re all doing what they’re paid for and the general public can’t be arsed to be smart about it, call bullshit and cut off the value extraction because of perceived inconveniences (data harvesting = ability to manipulate/steer public opinion = value to sell to those seeking power & control). the populace is the commodity being sold here.
We are all cooked
Yep, and last time the debt ceiling vote came up, people on the left were imploring Democrats to raise it by a stupid amount / abolish it so they wouldn’t need to go through this stupid fight again, but that was dismissed because it was ‘unrealistic’ or whatever.
And now Republicans are doing exactly that. After they’ve proven that a small caucus can take down / get concessions from the speaker of the house. Another thing some Democrats were unwilling to do.
Dems hold the key because there will be some GOP holdouts in both the house and senate. It is imperative to vote against the proposal because 1. It is good politics, and 2. It puts some breaks on executive overreach.
However, prepare to find those same centrist Dems who did not want to extend the debt ceiling under Biden vote in favor of this proposal to look BiparTiSan.
And I have absolutely no faith that Democrats will hold strong and not capitulate, sorry, I mean find “bipartisanship”.
EVERY Democrat needs to vote No. This is a requirement. Any Dem who votes for this, or ANY other Republican legislation, should be primaried.
Having a debt ceiling isn’t really the worst idea to an extent. You can reach a hypothetical point where you’re not able to realistically pay off your debt to other nations for instance. That’s why instead of raising the debt limit and weakening the dollar in the process, it makes more sense to tax corporations more to cover your country’s added expenses. There are specific things it makes sense to increase the debt limit to do though such as funding education, science and research, renewable and nuclear energy, and public transit systems as these are all value adds for a society in the long run.
The smaller caucus in their party is more closer aligned to the presidency though. A populist president would have a better chance to making progress for a smaller caucus. A small caucus in the Senate is what prevented most helpful or progressive legislation from passing as well, as seen in Manchin and Senima who are both Independents.
Dem President: Here’s my budget for the year and this is how much it would cost. Congress: We agree to pay for that. Dem President: Great, I need money to pay for things in the budget. Rep Congress: The president is irrationally spending money (on things we approved) we can’t possibly do that!
Having a debt ceiling isn’t really the worst idea to an extent.
Well yes, it is a very bad idea, since it’s redundant. When a funding bill is passed, the government is committing to funding that bill. If new revenue doesn’t cover it, they’ve incurred debt. The analysis is available before they vote. Having a separate vote on the debt is just another way that legislative rules enable inaction. It gives legislators a way to say they’ve voted for something even when they didn’t vote to raise the debt ceiling to pay for it. It’s irrational. Private-sector budgeting doesn’t operate this way, neither does public-sector funding in other developed countries.
How is it redundant?
Great, the government is committed to funding the bill, then they should increase taxes to fund the bill.
We should only be incurring debt in specific situations where there is a long run value add. I’m not saying we should be cutting spending at all, but we should be funding our spending by increasing taxes on corporations.
I don’t see the issue with having a separate vote in these situations which should be uncommon, where you are not able to fund the spending because it’s for one of the specific costs that add values to our society.
I agree that private sector budgeting doesn’t operate in the same way as public budgeting, but at a certain level in future it will start chipping at the value of the dollar if nation is not able to pay off its interest on the debt. My point is that we should be taxing corporations more to fund the spending.
The debt ceiling has always been used by Republicans to pressure Democrats into further concessions that would otherwise not have been needed to give. Remember, the debt ceiling is just an extra hurdle towards spending money that was already appropriated by Congress. So Congress as a whole voted to spend all that money and thus a certain amount of debt. The CBO can calculate exactly how much something will cost, so if you’re worried about what tax cuts/spending would do to the debt, you can always find out. There’s no need to have an additional thing on top of that that can randomly shut down the government.
The debt ceiling is used that way by Republicans for the most part. They don’t want to increase taxes even for corporations, but they try to force a budget resolution by cutting spending when there really is only so much you can cut without hurting people.
The debt ceiling is a reminder that there is a cost to the money we spend, I personally believe we are still far from it being an issue but we should be increasing taxes to properly allocate money for spending. Ideally you want to collect more than you spend, but some instances it makes sense to go into a steeper debt to get those tangible benefits I mentioned.
Really a shutdown should trigger elections because it just shows that the governing body can’t do their jobs.
The debt ceiling is used that way by Republicans for the most part. They don’t want to increase taxes even for corporations, but they try to force a budget resolution by cutting spending when there really is only so much you can cut without hurting people.
Exactly! The Democrats can’t use the debt ceiling, because shutting down the government hurts their constituency more. So it’s a loaded gun that can only be used by Republicans, and whenever Democrats are in a position to do something about it, they don’t. Same with the filibuster, BTW.
So it’s a loaded gun that can only be used by Republicans, and whenever Democrats are in a position to do something about it, they don’t.
This has basically been my experience as a Democrat-voter for years. “Our guys finally made it in, now we’ll finally see those changes they’ve been talking about” followed by crickets for 4 years 😬
Yep, so many examples of Democrats not doing the thing they could’ve done when they had the power. Putting Trump in prison (by not hiring a Republican as AG), codifying Roe v. Wade, replacing Supreme Court justices before they die, abolishing the filibuster, getting rid of the debt ceiling, …
And they always point their little finger when people give up on them, even though the facts are that democrats are either just putting up a puppet show where they’re always a vote short for something, or they’re incompetent.
This last election had shown that it wasn’t so much Trump that won, the Democrats lost because too many people stayed home because they’re sick of their games.
why we need this? wasn’t muskrat supposed to save like 3x that all by his little self?
we could also do m4a and save that much or more on health care–every two years.
Simple answer? Tax cuts for the rich are going to have to be paid for by creating more public debt.
The problem here is that you’re under the assumption that this isn’t all just intentional. Sure you could ask them if they don’t want this why did they do that–but the whole act was just to pacify you while they’re already onto the next thing. Everything they do is for their personal enrichment no matter the excuse. Also they won’t have to answer any of these types of questions because they have Newmax and their ilk in the press room nowadays and they are far from giving a shit about anything remotely close to that.
A sign of efficiency is often increased costs. /s
