I never thought I’d say it, but I agree with Trump on this one. Congressional Republicans have been loathe to raise the debt ceiling every time it comes up. Tying it to a disaster relief bill that would be tough to oppose is a good way to at least get past this round. On the the specific idea of raising the debt ceiling I’m also in agreement with Trump. It would be dangerous to not do it, and should basically be an automatic thing whenever the time to do it comes around. I feel kind of dirty for being on the same side as Trump on an issue, but there it is :0
Technically, the government’s economic strategy should be to take on debt during a recession and try to pay it off during flush times. That’s liberal theology.
Given that we’re at max employment, the government shouldn’t be taking on debt.
Emergency funds should be separate.
If the Democrats are failing to support the debt ceiling at this moment in time, then their Keynesian policy is not actually Keynesian policy. They just like to be free to spend money (or want to fluster the Republicans.
When the Republicans allow the Democrats to raise taxes back to a sane level instead of the more than 1000 tax cuts we’ve seen in the last 20 years (almost all of them targeting the very wealthy), then we can talk about whether or not the Dems are following their “theology” or not. But since the GOP has crippled the revenue side of the government finance equation, there isn’t any option except to take on debt or not govern at all.
Politically, this just completely undermined Ryan and McConnell. From the Republicans perspective, even if this was the bill they ended up with, they know that Trump merely accepted the numbers given to him by the Dems, sans negotiation. Art of the Deal, indeed!
The Dems have actually kept more quiet about this than one would expect… they apparently feel that if Trump sees them crowing on Fox News, he will cancel the deal.
But… Lou Dobbs to the rescue. Really, just watch this 1:30 clip and be sure your jaw is firmly tied to your chin.
If you can’t see via Twitter, search “Lou Dobbs Death of a RINO”.
Thank you, nate. The post you’re responding to reversed cause and effect. (That poster also felt a need to speak of “theology”: I’m grateful to nate because if that post were left to me to refute, I might have been tempted to write abusively.)
Another point often overlooked in these fiscal discussions, is that the GOP has largely succeeded in its goal of “Starving the Beast.” When intelligent comparisons are made, government spending is lower than its ever been in our lifetimes. For most of the government — with the obvious exception of the military — further spending cuts are not a real option: regulations and programs have already been stripped to the bone. Many federal regulatory agencies are just shells now, surviving only as sad reminders of a forward-looking America.
I write “intelligent comparisons” because some of the money government spends is unavoidable. Should Houston be denied the money it needs to recover and rebuild?
Should the self-inflicted 2008 financial crisis have been allowed to turn into another Great Depression?
Besides the military, the one area where government spending truly is out of control is Medicare, but high costs there are in part self-inflicted (a GOP-controlled Congress turned Medicare into a boondoggle to inflate pharmaceutical profits) and part due to more general healthcare cost problems.
It makes no sense to think of the debt ceiling as a way to control rising Medicare costs (though this was implied upthread). To turn GOP hyperbole against itself, retaining a debt ceiling to staunch Medicare spending is a euphemism for sending seniors to death camps.
Should we help Houston? Avoid sending seniors to death camps? Stop borrowing money from China? The non-sequitur Republican solution to all these problems is: Further cut taxes on the rich!
I think bills should be single subject, especially debt ceiling bills, but payback’s a bitch, innit? It’s fucking hilarious.
As to why 45 agreed to this, he’s a very vindictive person but also temporarily influenced by the last person he’s talked to, and in business this works because he’s been able to just weasel out of whatever he’d agreed to. So it could be a combination of getting back at the GOP and just agreeing to whatever the Dems wanted to to sucker them with bullshit promises.
Trump accepting this deal is the clearest sign yet the man has no idea what he is doing and has no long term strategy other than the salesmans need for the next win.
I mean, hell, he now put his own party in a position where they have to revisit all this again before Christmas, before the midterm election campaigning.
Think Pelosi can get Trump alone and have him sign off on Single Payer?
Pretty ironic to describe Democrats as the fiscally irresponsible party for wanting the country not to default on its debt, when Republicans are the ones pushing policies that are likely to add trillions to the national debt in the way of unpaid-for tax cuts.
I heard an NPR commentator opine on the “two schools of thought” over why Trump did this, which essentially boil down to the “7th-Dimensional Chessmaster” theory vs. the “Impetuous Man-baby” theory. My money’s on the latter.
Trump is trying to engage Democrats because otherwise Democrats vote in a bloc against everything, and the Republicans therefore need to pass everything with no more than three defections - something they can’t seem to do because there are too many moderates at one end of their coalition and too many conservative absolutists at the other. The result has been essentially gridlock.
If he wants to get anything done at all in congress, he is therefore forced to engage the Democrats. And since they have the power to obstruct anything they want so long as the Republicans are divided, and have nothing to lose by saying no since Trump is so unpopular, the Democrats have the upper hand in negotiations.
The argument you’re making seems to be that “Republicans have crippled government revenues over the last 20 years with 1000+ tax cuts.” I’m not sure what your source is for “more than 1000 tax cuts”, but looking back 20 years ago*, to 1997, “the revenue side of the government finance equation” (ie "total receipts) was $1.58 trillion. The 2017 estimate is $3.46 trillion. Government revenue has done a bit more than double over the last 20 years.
TimeWinder, does this information cause you to reconsider your position?
I’m anticipating someone will want to make a point about population growth and inflation. I don’t have time to work out all the numbers right now, but here’s the starting point to get you going:
US population in 1997 = 273 million
US population in 2017 = 325 million
inflation has averaged 2.0% annually over the last 20 years, according to BLS, if I’m operating their query tool correctly.
When you’re done, please let me know if you think that “crippled the revenue side of the government finance equation” is an accurate representation of reality.
Your information shouldn’t cause anyone to reconsider their position, because you’ve used the worst possible metric to assess taxes. Simply measuring taxes collected at two points in time is a facile measure of fiscal policy.
One better measurement is to consider tax collections as a percentage of GDP. In 1997, the year you arbitrarily chose, taxes represented 18.3% of the economy. Last year, that number was 17.5%. Had collections simply remained generally consistent at 1997 levels, our deficit would be about one-quarter smaller than they are today.
I didn’t “arbitrarily” choose the year. TimeWinder said “the last 20 years”. 2017 - 20 = 1997
Why do you think comparing tax revenue “as a percentage of GDP” is a “better measurement”? TimeWinder’s assertion was that “the GOP has crippled the revenue side of the government finance equation”. But “the revenue side of the government finance equation” isn’t really measured “better” as a percentage of GDP. They either have more money to buy things with, and are not “crippled” or have less money to buy things with, in which case, if it’s enough less, you might accurately call them “crippled”. Which is it in this case? Do they have more money or less than they did 20 years ago? You seem to be arguing that at 18.3% of GDP, they were not crippled, but at 17.5% of GDP they are crippled. That doesn’t seem terribly reasonable on its face, but I’d like to give you a chance to try to clarify, if you’re interested.
