I would venture that this whole thing will be largely forgotten before the next presidential election.
I 1,000% guarantee this will all be forgotten by the next election, just like every previous debt ceiling crisis.
Oh I agree but Biden is selling this deal similarly to how @iiandyiiii is describing it - as a glorified budget deal with a bunch of ultimately inconsequential theater about the debt ceiling. I think the dems gave up significantly more than they should have been expected to in a pure budget fight and the criticism of biden from democrats is warranted.
By 2024 this is going to have a minimal effect on how anyone votes.
FWIW:
Full title: “McCarthy races to sell newly released debt deal amid rumblings of far-right rebellion”
I disagree with the first part (that we could have done significantly better), but agree with the rest. It’s impossible to know for sure.
More:
While expanding work requirements will shrink SNAP for some, according to this SNAP will be expanded for more than TWICE AS MANY in the form of homeless and veterans that previously did not have access. So in the balance, this bill appears to be an EXPANSION, not a reduction, of SNAP benefits.
From what I’ve seen so far, it’s really shocking how good this appears for Biden and the Democrats – why did McCarthy agree to this? Maybe it won’t pass both Houses, but we’ll see. But this is looking better and better the more I read.
And the Dem leadership knows that whatever the final outcome and the consequences thereof, over the next 17 months, the Reps will run on that whatever goes wrong or even less than perfect it is all Biden’s fault anyway. And the low-info voters who don’t pay attention until the week of the conventions will believe it because hey, POTUS is in charge, if something is bad it’s because of a decision HE took, right?
As was their case once with the weak-on-security brand, now on economic matters Establishment Dems of our generation are terrified of being portrayed as the administration that let Wall Street burn.
As far as I have read through it, this does look like about as “good” as anyone could have expected to settle for, once you discard the [clean unconditional raise] vs. [reverse every single Biden spending priority] binary. Yes, it’s frustrating becuse the real sensible middle ground WOULD be the clean raise, but it’s politics.
No one is happy.
Many feel Biden should not have given up anything to this extortion.
Many feel McCarthy did not get the dem beat-down the Freedom Caucus wants.
In a way, Biden didn’t give up anything. I still don’t see yet how this could have gone any better, realistically, for the Democrats, considering that they would have had to negotiate the budget eventually.
It could have gone better if the Dems had refused to negotiate with the terrorists holding the nation hostage. It might have ended up with the same budget deal, this time, but it would have put an end to all of the future hostage-taking. Or at least, the hostage-taking using this particular weapon.
Do you think he would have increased work requirements because I think it would be a very bad concession to give up in that context.
I also think really any bind on budgets after 2024 would not have been on the table if it was just about the budget.
never mind
Maybe. That was my preferred plan – I thought there was no point to negotiations. But Biden surprised me again. And he (or his successor) can still use this tool for next time. Hell, for all we know, he might have (in secret) threatened to use one of these options with McCarthy, which persuaded McCarthy to cave.
But it looks like we traded a slightly increased work requirement for a FAR GREATER expansion for homeless and veterans’ SNAP benefits. That appears to be a net gain, AFAICT.
Do you have an article on that?
Just this: https://twitter.com/GalenMetzger1/status/1662668440619065349
Don’t know if it’s accurate.
Thanks. I guess we’ll see.
Correcting myself: the real sensible thing would be to do that for current obligations AND sh**can the whole “debt ceiling” conceit going forward and adopt that you will explicitly approve covering the obligations when you approve incurring them, but good luck getting the votes for that .
We’ll have to see what the eventual impact is. But the increased work requirement is basically just beating up on some of the most vulnerable Americans for negligible - if any - gain, purely for political theater.
There’s a reason why every government states they will not negotiate with terrorists, and then usually ends up negotiating with terrorists. There was no option available to Biden that did not entail significant political and economic risks. This deal as reported will prevent economic chaos at fairly minimal cost to the Administration.
Will this encourage future hostage taking? There’s nothing that could dissuade Republicans from future hostage taking. And if they use this particular tool again and demand too high a price, future Administrations will still have those nuclear options available to them if necessary.