Re: Republican threats of refusal to raise the debt ceiling
It's sh*t like this that have me long saying that, as a white male college educated upper income business owner, I would have become a Republican a long time ago if it wasn't for the f*cking Republicans.
Charlie, I played your podcast with Will today while driving my 90 year old Trumper Dad to the bank. He listened for 5 minutes and then exclaimed: “These guys are assholes!” 😂😂😂
Charlie - there's also nothing 'Conservative' about constantly increasing spending and debt regardless of the economic implications. Truth be told, neither party is rooted in truth and principles and the R only pay attention to federal spending and debt with lip service when they occupy either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. When I saw a recent poll showing that a majority of Americans favor increased spending for each of 19 priorities and refused to reduce spending for any, the end is near. For me, it really doesn't matter if we 'default' as our Federal Government would qualify for bankruptcy status and protection -- with its current spending and debt habits. All we ever accomplish with raising the debt ceiling is no different than an individual who overspends, wants to continue his behavior and then wants the credit card issuer to keep raising his credit limit again and again. As long as we have a country in which many do not pay income taxes for the benefits they receive from Washington, your DC politicians will always offer more spending to buy your vote - especially when Porky Pete or Dummy Debbie tell you that you can get more free stuff without ever paying for it. The Freedom Caucus has a weak hand and bring on the default.
"All we ever accomplish with raising the debt ceiling is no different than an individual who overspends, wants to continue his behavior and then wants the credit card issuer to keep raising his credit limit again and again."
Beg to differ, JB: There is a reason the US, unlike "an individual" will (as long as the rate of economic growth meets or exceeds the rate of growth in the debt on average over time) - will always be able to make the payments on its debt. See my post below for the argument. The history of the country offers empirical evidence for the idea as well: the country has always been able to make the payments on its debt, notwithstanding how the debt has increased over the last 60 years (see: the chart at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S). If the US economy continues to grow over the next 60 years as it has over the last 60 (an entirely reasonable prospect), the country will continue to be able to make the payments it must make on its debt.
Yes, we will be able to service our debt - but that doesn't address the issues of overspending that gave rise to the debt. Government also has 2 advantages that you and I do not have on debt repayment - we cannot compel our neighbors to pay higher taxes and we cannot print paper money. Also, you and I can never guarantee ourselves any income increase to cover any of our personal profligate choices. Yes, as long as Uncle Sam can play debt shell games with consistent refinancing, paper $$ and taxes, the game will continue regardless of your article's findings. However, to me -- we are F****d economically as a nation and We The People have bought into the politician's favorite lie -- We can spend more and more and it will cost you, the voter - NOTHING. You keep voting for me and I will keep you happy.
RE: There's Nothing "Conservative" About Reneging On the Debt.
"House Freedom Caucus?" It would be interesting to see how these guys would feel if all their private investments were cut in half because they caused a default by grandstanding on the debt ceiling. Then, there would be the tens of thousands of irate citizens brandishing real axes to grind. Jan 6 would have nothing on this justifiably angry mob!
It's probably pointless, but still, isn't it possible that maybe some Republicans might stop and reconsider if someone on the other side stopped beating up on them for a moment and took the time to address their concerns about spending directly? One way to do that would be to point out that as long as the economy grows faster over time on average than the debt, the debt will always be 'manageable,' no matter how large it may become. (Think about a credit card holder whose income growth exceeds the growth in her debt: she will always be able to increase her credit limit and still make all required payments. That's why credit card companies are always asking if your income has increased: they want to lend you more money because they know you'll always be able to make the payments.) Republicans are scared because they know no individual can accumulate debt indefinitely - eventually the piper must be paid or bankruptcy must be declared. But the country is not an individual - it's never going to stop working and growing. Combine that with the fact that all government spending (in representative democracies at least) serves (in one way or another) to undergird and support economic growth, and Republican concerns about spending lose their force. If some Republicans still have enough of their wits about them to recognize that, they might be willing to work with Democrats to raise the debt ceiling and get on with the job.
Much about politics is ridiculous. Sometimes the ridiculousness has to be dealt with seriously because of the harm it can do, but sometimes it is just plain fun. Threatening to fail to raise the debt ceiling is an example of the first. It has to be raised, and if the Republicans want to cut spending, they can do so in the next budget cycle. The business over Santos is an example of the second. Democrats are pretending to be outraged over the fact that, of all things, a politician would lie about his qualifications and background and demanding that Santos resign to preserve the purity and essence of our electoral process. Republicans are responding that Santos should resign only after Elizabeth Warren, Richard “Rambo” Blumenthal, and Joe Biden set the example and resign first. I think people should leave Santos alone and let him serve his term. The little scoundrel is in a place where he belongs among a bipartisan group of people with whom he fits in.
Charlie - can you do a segment explaining what the debt ceiling is and how it directly affects government spending. i thought i understood it but then, family. say no more.
Regarding the GOP's death wish on the debt ceiling...I can't help but picture the scene in Blazing Saddles where Bart (Cleavon Little) takes his own gun and holds himself hostage in order to get out of being hanged.
Charlie's right: there's nothing "conservative" (ie. to conserve - to protect from harm, to maintain) about blowing up the debt ceiling. But there's very little actual conservatism in today's House Republicans or the Republicans on SCOTUS. It was certainly not "conservative" to toss out a 100-year old New York gun safety law, or 50 years of law and precedent on which women relied to make decisions about their reproductive lives, throwing the legal and medical fields in disarray to boot. The Republican party has been full of political arsonists for quite some time now. And the rest of us are stuck trying to put out their fires and minimize the damage.
“ Now, should Democrats have dealt with the debt limit while they still controlled both chambers of Congress? Yes. Absolutely. If we breach the debt ceiling in the coming months, their failure to do so could turn out to be the biggest tactical blunder of the Biden era.”
No, it’s not the Dem’s fault. Why do these folks always end up here? Rs do egregious thing - BUT lookie over here, it’s really the Dem’s fault. I guess Rs are just not expected to govern in the interests of the citizens and world. So when they don’t, it’s always the Dem’s fault. I’m not a Dem, but I’m sick of this BS always given to support the R’s worst actions.
“I guess Rs are just not expected to govern in the interests of the citizens and world.”
You don’t even have to guess. That’s just a fact at this point. No one expects them to govern, most of all their supporters who definitely don’t want them to govern in that way. They - and particularly the voters - want it all burned down. That is what they see as being in their best interest.
The Dems are the only ones who can stop them from burning it all down so they have to assume that mantle (or be okay with it all burning down).
I often say that political parties are poison. Catherine Rampell's statement about the Democrat's "tactical" blunder inadvertently illustrates why.
Rampell is correct that from a national interest standpoint, this was a tactical error. Buf from a Democratic Party standpoint? Not so much.
Don't get me wrong. The Democrats are the only sane political party we have, and there is a rational argument to be made that anything that is good for them will ultimately be good for the country.
However, it should be noted that what is in the medium-term best interest for the Democrats can be in the short-term worst interest of the country. If I'm a political strategist and I decide during the lame-duck period that the overriding concern is booting Republicans out of the House in 2024, then I am going to recommend intentionally *not* resolving the debt ceiling issue before the end of the term.
As many people have observed amidst the recent schadenfreude-fest of Kevin McCarthy's abject humiliation, Hakeem Jeffries has learned well from Nancy Pelosi. In particular, he knows not to interfere when your opponent is self-destructing. This is why the Democrats didn't seek to actively broker a deal for saner leadership, deciding that the Republicans would need to be the ones to take the initiative. And the party has remained steadfastly united behind him.
Democrats knew what Republicans were going to do if they allowed it. And they also have the benefit of knowing what happened the last time the Tea Caucus pulled this shit – the public blamed the Republicans (as they should have). But our bond rating was nevertheless damaged by the mere threat of default.
With such a narrow House margin, the Democrats astutely realize that Republicans are only hurting their chances of maintaining their majority beyond this term. Thus they have handed them the rope to hang themselves with. And with them, our country's good name and financial solvency may also end up twisting in the wind.
That last being the real problem. If not for that, I'd be all in on letting the bastards self-destruct and hang themselves on this. Just don't think the price of a govt. default worth it in either the short or long run, since the consequences could well outrun any of those concerns by a country mile. We've been plenty of places we haven't been before already of late. Don't think we need to add to the list at this moment in that way.
Would have been happier if the Ds had squelched the flames on this one before they could start this time around, and let the sob's self-destruct in other ways (along with any help the Ds might provide), since they seem to be showing some promise in that department.
If those a-holes manage to run us over the financial cliff this time around, we'll all likely end up hanging together, but not for any noble reason or cause.
I suspect the Dems know they have enough GOP votes to pass the debt ceiling raise. They've probably been twisting certain arms with the help of GOP Senators. McTurtle knows letting the anarchists in the house kill off the GOP is not in the best interest of GOP Senators or his hope to retake the Senate majority.
Also, in this case I think what the Democrats know is that Republicans simply aren't going to be able to sustain their ridiculous position for very long. It will be the political equivalent of threatening to hold your breath until you die. Something will give. Unfortunately, our bond rating may already have a downgrade baked in as a result of this idiotic political brinkmanship.
If I understand correctly, the problem is not having the numbers to support it. The problem is that the crazies managed to negotiate a controlling share of the rules committee, which can ultimately control which items are allowed to proceed to the floor.
This has always been one of the biggest problems with Congress. We'd almost certainly have had a comprehensive immigration package years ago when one passed the Senate, if not for John Boehner preventing it from getting a vote in the House (where it would likely have passed). Why deprive your party of a politically salient issue to gripe over by actually solving a problem? It pisses me off to no end the way something can have ample support in Congress and yet a small number of jerks in leadership positions can keep it buried.
The only saving grace here, if you want to think of it as such, is the instability of this whole deal given that any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, can force a referendum on McCarthy at any moment. How that would actually shake out though, and whether it would be for better or worse, is anyone's guess.
I'd rather you be right than wrong, of course. I just don't have any confidence in anyone in Congress with an R after their name at this point. There may be some acting in good faith, or at least something resembling it. But not nearly enough. And the complete lack of that as a party, whether by action or inaction vis a vie the welfare of the country writ large, makes it pretty hard for me to see this as anything other than the unnecessary threat and danger that it is.
Re: Republican threats of refusal to raise the debt ceiling
It's sh*t like this that have me long saying that, as a white male college educated upper income business owner, I would have become a Republican a long time ago if it wasn't for the f*cking Republicans.
So it’s true. Kevin McCarthy is really dumb as a box of rocks.
America used to be the land of the free. Now it's more like the land of the corrupt, boastful ignorant.
Amusing to know how poorly Magas think of Ronna. She sold her country out and they hate her for it.
Charlie, I played your podcast with Will today while driving my 90 year old Trumper Dad to the bank. He listened for 5 minutes and then exclaimed: “These guys are assholes!” 😂😂😂
Charlie - there's also nothing 'Conservative' about constantly increasing spending and debt regardless of the economic implications. Truth be told, neither party is rooted in truth and principles and the R only pay attention to federal spending and debt with lip service when they occupy either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. When I saw a recent poll showing that a majority of Americans favor increased spending for each of 19 priorities and refused to reduce spending for any, the end is near. For me, it really doesn't matter if we 'default' as our Federal Government would qualify for bankruptcy status and protection -- with its current spending and debt habits. All we ever accomplish with raising the debt ceiling is no different than an individual who overspends, wants to continue his behavior and then wants the credit card issuer to keep raising his credit limit again and again. As long as we have a country in which many do not pay income taxes for the benefits they receive from Washington, your DC politicians will always offer more spending to buy your vote - especially when Porky Pete or Dummy Debbie tell you that you can get more free stuff without ever paying for it. The Freedom Caucus has a weak hand and bring on the default.
"All we ever accomplish with raising the debt ceiling is no different than an individual who overspends, wants to continue his behavior and then wants the credit card issuer to keep raising his credit limit again and again."
Beg to differ, JB: There is a reason the US, unlike "an individual" will (as long as the rate of economic growth meets or exceeds the rate of growth in the debt on average over time) - will always be able to make the payments on its debt. See my post below for the argument. The history of the country offers empirical evidence for the idea as well: the country has always been able to make the payments on its debt, notwithstanding how the debt has increased over the last 60 years (see: the chart at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S). If the US economy continues to grow over the next 60 years as it has over the last 60 (an entirely reasonable prospect), the country will continue to be able to make the payments it must make on its debt.
Yes, we will be able to service our debt - but that doesn't address the issues of overspending that gave rise to the debt. Government also has 2 advantages that you and I do not have on debt repayment - we cannot compel our neighbors to pay higher taxes and we cannot print paper money. Also, you and I can never guarantee ourselves any income increase to cover any of our personal profligate choices. Yes, as long as Uncle Sam can play debt shell games with consistent refinancing, paper $$ and taxes, the game will continue regardless of your article's findings. However, to me -- we are F****d economically as a nation and We The People have bought into the politician's favorite lie -- We can spend more and more and it will cost you, the voter - NOTHING. You keep voting for me and I will keep you happy.
RE: There's Nothing "Conservative" About Reneging On the Debt.
"House Freedom Caucus?" It would be interesting to see how these guys would feel if all their private investments were cut in half because they caused a default by grandstanding on the debt ceiling. Then, there would be the tens of thousands of irate citizens brandishing real axes to grind. Jan 6 would have nothing on this justifiably angry mob!
It's probably pointless, but still, isn't it possible that maybe some Republicans might stop and reconsider if someone on the other side stopped beating up on them for a moment and took the time to address their concerns about spending directly? One way to do that would be to point out that as long as the economy grows faster over time on average than the debt, the debt will always be 'manageable,' no matter how large it may become. (Think about a credit card holder whose income growth exceeds the growth in her debt: she will always be able to increase her credit limit and still make all required payments. That's why credit card companies are always asking if your income has increased: they want to lend you more money because they know you'll always be able to make the payments.) Republicans are scared because they know no individual can accumulate debt indefinitely - eventually the piper must be paid or bankruptcy must be declared. But the country is not an individual - it's never going to stop working and growing. Combine that with the fact that all government spending (in representative democracies at least) serves (in one way or another) to undergird and support economic growth, and Republican concerns about spending lose their force. If some Republicans still have enough of their wits about them to recognize that, they might be willing to work with Democrats to raise the debt ceiling and get on with the job.
Much about politics is ridiculous. Sometimes the ridiculousness has to be dealt with seriously because of the harm it can do, but sometimes it is just plain fun. Threatening to fail to raise the debt ceiling is an example of the first. It has to be raised, and if the Republicans want to cut spending, they can do so in the next budget cycle. The business over Santos is an example of the second. Democrats are pretending to be outraged over the fact that, of all things, a politician would lie about his qualifications and background and demanding that Santos resign to preserve the purity and essence of our electoral process. Republicans are responding that Santos should resign only after Elizabeth Warren, Richard “Rambo” Blumenthal, and Joe Biden set the example and resign first. I think people should leave Santos alone and let him serve his term. The little scoundrel is in a place where he belongs among a bipartisan group of people with whom he fits in.
I agree with your first point but not on the second.
Santos is a pathological liar and apparently a crook to boot. He has no place in Congress.
Charlie - can you do a segment explaining what the debt ceiling is and how it directly affects government spending. i thought i understood it but then, family. say no more.
The Freedom Caucus is neither
Regarding the GOP's death wish on the debt ceiling...I can't help but picture the scene in Blazing Saddles where Bart (Cleavon Little) takes his own gun and holds himself hostage in order to get out of being hanged.
Unfortunately they aren't just holding the gun on themselves, in which case I'd urge them to go for it. They're holding it on all of us.
Charlie's right: there's nothing "conservative" (ie. to conserve - to protect from harm, to maintain) about blowing up the debt ceiling. But there's very little actual conservatism in today's House Republicans or the Republicans on SCOTUS. It was certainly not "conservative" to toss out a 100-year old New York gun safety law, or 50 years of law and precedent on which women relied to make decisions about their reproductive lives, throwing the legal and medical fields in disarray to boot. The Republican party has been full of political arsonists for quite some time now. And the rest of us are stuck trying to put out their fires and minimize the damage.
We need to start calling this debt ceiling threat what it is, an extortion play holding seniors as hostages.
“ Now, should Democrats have dealt with the debt limit while they still controlled both chambers of Congress? Yes. Absolutely. If we breach the debt ceiling in the coming months, their failure to do so could turn out to be the biggest tactical blunder of the Biden era.”
No, it’s not the Dem’s fault. Why do these folks always end up here? Rs do egregious thing - BUT lookie over here, it’s really the Dem’s fault. I guess Rs are just not expected to govern in the interests of the citizens and world. So when they don’t, it’s always the Dem’s fault. I’m not a Dem, but I’m sick of this BS always given to support the R’s worst actions.
I know. It gets awful damn tiresome. But old habits die hard, I guess.
“I guess Rs are just not expected to govern in the interests of the citizens and world.”
You don’t even have to guess. That’s just a fact at this point. No one expects them to govern, most of all their supporters who definitely don’t want them to govern in that way. They - and particularly the voters - want it all burned down. That is what they see as being in their best interest.
The Dems are the only ones who can stop them from burning it all down so they have to assume that mantle (or be okay with it all burning down).
It’s not fair but it is reality.
I often say that political parties are poison. Catherine Rampell's statement about the Democrat's "tactical" blunder inadvertently illustrates why.
Rampell is correct that from a national interest standpoint, this was a tactical error. Buf from a Democratic Party standpoint? Not so much.
Don't get me wrong. The Democrats are the only sane political party we have, and there is a rational argument to be made that anything that is good for them will ultimately be good for the country.
However, it should be noted that what is in the medium-term best interest for the Democrats can be in the short-term worst interest of the country. If I'm a political strategist and I decide during the lame-duck period that the overriding concern is booting Republicans out of the House in 2024, then I am going to recommend intentionally *not* resolving the debt ceiling issue before the end of the term.
As many people have observed amidst the recent schadenfreude-fest of Kevin McCarthy's abject humiliation, Hakeem Jeffries has learned well from Nancy Pelosi. In particular, he knows not to interfere when your opponent is self-destructing. This is why the Democrats didn't seek to actively broker a deal for saner leadership, deciding that the Republicans would need to be the ones to take the initiative. And the party has remained steadfastly united behind him.
Democrats knew what Republicans were going to do if they allowed it. And they also have the benefit of knowing what happened the last time the Tea Caucus pulled this shit – the public blamed the Republicans (as they should have). But our bond rating was nevertheless damaged by the mere threat of default.
With such a narrow House margin, the Democrats astutely realize that Republicans are only hurting their chances of maintaining their majority beyond this term. Thus they have handed them the rope to hang themselves with. And with them, our country's good name and financial solvency may also end up twisting in the wind.
That last being the real problem. If not for that, I'd be all in on letting the bastards self-destruct and hang themselves on this. Just don't think the price of a govt. default worth it in either the short or long run, since the consequences could well outrun any of those concerns by a country mile. We've been plenty of places we haven't been before already of late. Don't think we need to add to the list at this moment in that way.
Would have been happier if the Ds had squelched the flames on this one before they could start this time around, and let the sob's self-destruct in other ways (along with any help the Ds might provide), since they seem to be showing some promise in that department.
If those a-holes manage to run us over the financial cliff this time around, we'll all likely end up hanging together, but not for any noble reason or cause.
I suspect the Dems know they have enough GOP votes to pass the debt ceiling raise. They've probably been twisting certain arms with the help of GOP Senators. McTurtle knows letting the anarchists in the house kill off the GOP is not in the best interest of GOP Senators or his hope to retake the Senate majority.
Also, in this case I think what the Democrats know is that Republicans simply aren't going to be able to sustain their ridiculous position for very long. It will be the political equivalent of threatening to hold your breath until you die. Something will give. Unfortunately, our bond rating may already have a downgrade baked in as a result of this idiotic political brinkmanship.
No matter how this turns out, I expect there to be some amount of completely unnecessary damage as a result.
If I understand correctly, the problem is not having the numbers to support it. The problem is that the crazies managed to negotiate a controlling share of the rules committee, which can ultimately control which items are allowed to proceed to the floor.
This has always been one of the biggest problems with Congress. We'd almost certainly have had a comprehensive immigration package years ago when one passed the Senate, if not for John Boehner preventing it from getting a vote in the House (where it would likely have passed). Why deprive your party of a politically salient issue to gripe over by actually solving a problem? It pisses me off to no end the way something can have ample support in Congress and yet a small number of jerks in leadership positions can keep it buried.
The only saving grace here, if you want to think of it as such, is the instability of this whole deal given that any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, can force a referendum on McCarthy at any moment. How that would actually shake out though, and whether it would be for better or worse, is anyone's guess.
I'd rather you be right than wrong, of course. I just don't have any confidence in anyone in Congress with an R after their name at this point. There may be some acting in good faith, or at least something resembling it. But not nearly enough. And the complete lack of that as a party, whether by action or inaction vis a vie the welfare of the country writ large, makes it pretty hard for me to see this as anything other than the unnecessary threat and danger that it is.