Mitch McConnell Blinked FirstFollow

Bully pit, really? I thought it was always bull pit.

That's an oddly relevant point. Barring straight up corruption of some sort, politicians usually want to represent the interests and ideology of those who elected them. That's the whole point of a representative democracy. How exactly they do that can vary based on the specific position they've been elected to, but in this context, it's pretty reasonable to assume that the Dems in congress are going to try to do what liberal voters want, and the GOP is going to try to do what conservative voters want.

Conservatives tend to believe that smaller government is better, that we've increased our spending too much, that this is preventing our economy from recovering and causing a debt crisis, and that the solution is therefore to cut spending down to pre-crash levels (as much as possible), while not raising taxes. So that's what the GOP is going to try to do.

Liberals tend to believe that big government provides needed social services and are willing to pay more (or to make others pay more) to provide them. They believe that the recent spending is necessary and important, that it must be protected at all cost, and that the unwillingness of the GOP to allow the tax increases necessary to pay for that spending is what's causing our current debt problem. Thus, the Dems are going to fight to prevent any spending cuts while trying their best to raise as much taxes as possible to pay down the deficit.



What does this have to do with the debt ceiling? Nothing directly. Both sides want to avoid defaulting on our debt, but that's not really at issue. The question is whether or not we raise our debt limit so that we can continue spending money without having to pay for it. Raising the debt limit helps the Dems more than the GOP for the simple reason that it takes time to impose new taxes, while spending can be cut pretty much instantaneously (you just stop funding stuff). The default action once at the debt ceiling is to stop paying for anything except necessary expenses. There's plenty of funds to shuffle around in order to pay for those things *and* meet our debt obligations. There just isn't sufficient funds to do that while also paying for all that other stuff the Dems have promised to their constituents.


At the end of the day though, raising the debt ceiling doesn't solve the problem. It just buys us a bit of time, while allowing us to fall further into debt. That's why both sides would prefer to come up with some sort of deal that it tied to raising the debt ceiling. Obviously, the Dems want that deal to include promised tax increases, while the GOP wants it to include promised spending cuts. So basically an impasse.


Let me make a prediction. What will most likely happen is that they'll agree to raising the ceiling, with the both sides giving a non-committed "promise" to give up something (spending and taxing respectively). Nothing firm or specific though. That way both sides get to claim victory, but neither side actually has to give anything up. The government will go on, and we'll fight this fight another day. Unfortunately, there's quite often a difference between what is the right thing to do politically, and what is the actual "right thing to do".

You're not getting your news from anywhere, huh?

So 2.7 trillion in spending cuts and tax code & entitlement reforms is "preventing any spending cuts"? Interesting how little you know about... everything.

Context is everything Joph. The spending cuts I'm referring to are about the new spending the Dems pushed in the last few years. I'm sure they're willing to cut spending on defense and domestic programs which they aren't so invested in. That's not really a "sacrifice" for them, is it? But in return they want the GOP to give them what the GOP least wants to give?


I'll ask again: In what world does that seem like a fair deal. The Dems get the debt ceiling raised so they can continue their new stimulus spending. The Dems get to keep that new spending going forward. The Dems get to cut spending to things their constituents don't like (defense, and want to bet the "domestic" cuts they'll propose are for things like border fence construction, and patriot act stuff?), and they get the tax increases they want! Boy, I can't imagine why the GOP isn't falling over themselves to make that deal.

Really Joph? No honesty at all here?

One pretty much leads to the other, like a stack of dominoes, almost instantly. Not raising the debt ceiling would prevent the US Treasury from "borrowing" money (i.e. issuing US treasury bonds), meaning the US treasury would not be able to pay the interest or make other payments on existing loans, e.g, it would have to default on them.

The Democrats won't do spending cuts! No, no.. not THOSE spending cuts, only ones I want them to do! SO UNFAIR!!


From you? Not a bit. Lying seems to be all you have left lately.


Edited, Jul 13th 2011 5:42pm by Jophiel

I see Gbaji is off the meds again. 2.7 trillion in spending cuts just don't count! They have to be from somewhere I want them cut! Bwa wa wa!

No, it wouldn't. In exactly the same way that your credit card company not raising your credit limit doesn't automatically mean you can't make the minimum payment next month. What it means is that you can't borrow more money to pay that minimum payment and continue to pay for all the other stuff you're paying for.

Which is precisely the point.


You're also ignoring something I wrote earlier. About $4.5T or so of that debt is in the form of intergovernmental debt. That's just an accounting measure used to keep track of money shifted from one allocated program to another. Congress can erase that debt with a stroke of a pen.

Not raising the debt ceiling does not automatically mean defaulting on the existing debt. It means we'd be forced to bring our spending (including interest on the debt) down to equal our revenue. You do understand that the US treasury collects taxes all year long, right? We have a steady supply of money flowing in. All the debt ceiling means is that we can't spend more than we're taking in. If you really think that balancing the budget is important, this forces it right now.


Obviously, it would be better to plan out said balancing ahead of time, but if the Dems are refusing to do so without raising taxes, then holding on this debt ceiling is a pretty decent tactic for the GOP. As I said earlier, it takes time to raise tax rates and collect the taxes. It takes zero time to *not* spend money. Thus, it's the Dems who have a much stronger interest in raising the debt ceiling than the GOP. What's bizarre is all the liberals working so hard to argue that the GOP wants it raised just as badly. If that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion, right?

Yes. What part of that didn't you get when I clearly wrote it (several times so far in fact!)? The Democrats care about their own social spending. They will gladly cut military spending if they can.


The point is that if we're talking about both sides "compromising" doesn't that somewhat require that each side give up something of equal value? Do you think the Dems are giving anything when they give cuts to defense? Really?

Gbaji asked as he frantically prayed that no one notice the bits about domestic spending and entitlement reforms...

I already addressed the domestic spending question Joph. Without knowing what they're putting on the table, you can't say that it includes any of the spending increases they made in the last couple years.

As to the entitlement reforms, are you kidding?



They're "generating new revenues" from changes to the tax code and savings from entitlement reform. Um... that's not "cutting spending", that's "increasing revenue". They're playing word games Joph. The word "entitlement" means any method of putting money into someone's hands. It doesn't just mean welfare. You get that what they're talking about is eliminating tax deductions, right?


But they're being honest and on the up and up!

Edited, Jul 13th 2011 4:03pm by gbaji

Sigh.

Another page of worthless posts.

Learning from history is all Joph. Remember when the Dems called spending a "tax credit" and then acted surprised at why the GOP opposed the stimulus when it had all those tax cuts in it?

Yeah. Good times! Call me a pessimist, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that their plan to increase revenue by creating savings in entitlement programs doesn't have anything to do with decreasing the amount of money we take from someone who earned it and give to someone who didn't, and a hell of a lot to do with taking more money away from those who earned it by eliminating some of their tax deductions.

Just call the mortgage tax deduction an "entitlement" and you're golden, right?



You just keep on being dishonest Joph. You also know that I was talking about forming opinions, not talking about events. But hey! When you don't have logic, or reason, or facts on your side, go with innuendo and ad hominem.