If GOP Wins Either House Of Congress, Dems Must Kill the Debt Ceiling
If GOP Wins Either House Of Congress, Dems Must Kill Debt Ceiling
If it comes to pass and especially if the GOP takes both houses, presumably Democrats will be able to kill the debt ceiling in the lame duck session. This assumes Manchin and Sinema stick with them on it, which one of them might not. As a budget matter, it can pass by reconciliation, which avoids a filibuster. It can also be passed with only 50 votes plus VP Harris in the Senate. There are several specific ways they can do it, with it not really mattering which they do, and that they are able to do it if this issue comes to pass. The chances of such happening look highly likely at least with respect to the House of Representatives, if not definite.
We have seen the GOP play games with the debt ceiling in the past, most damagingly in 2011, although sometimes when they have done so, they have suffered negative political feedback. Indeed, fear of that has in the past allowed “more reasonable” Republicans in the House, where these efforts seem to have always emanated from, to eventually cut some sort of not too bad deal with the administration before the plug got pulled and an actual market-damaging default happened.
The problem now, as we pretty much all know, although this matter is not getting much attention, is that on top of the general polarization, the House GOP members are becoming increasingly radical right, with a whole bunch of seriously crazy types likely to enter the House with this election, even if they do not take control. The moderate GOPs are retiring or getting primaried out for insufficient Trumpiness, and a bunch of election deniers and QAnon followers and so forth will certainly be coming in. And if GOP takes the House, if Kevin McCarthy is even able to get himself elected Speaker rather than someone much further right, he will be under severe pressure from the extreme wing of the party to make seriously wild demands that would be very damaging to put in place, with the Biden admin going to be resisting hard, and with these bomb throwers more likely to be willing to go all the way to pushing an outright default, even possibly with the conscious plan of bringing about an economic crash they can blame on Biden in 2024.
The danger of this is really seriously high, and it needs to be nipped in the bud. I understand many think that somehow the debt ceiling is some sort of sacrosanct thing, having been around in some form or other for over a century. But it is not. It has never made any sense and no other nation has anything like it, although some have rules limiting the sizes of budget deficits, a different thing. Several of us here, most certainly including me, have posted on this general matter numerous times in the past. And we have long argued that the debt ceiling should simply be abolished. It serves no useful purpose, and only opens our governing process to serious mischief. Heck, even though a default was avoided in 2011, it came close enough that it led to a debt downgrade for the US.
So, Dems, if you lose a house of Congress, eliminate the debt ceiling, please!
Um… Has anybody briefed the administration on this? JR Biden is not down with it: Biden rules out eliminating the debt ceiling
He described this approach as “irresponsible”.
We will have to wait till after the election. I am not so sure Repubs will gain back the House. The abortion issue still has people riled up.
Things change. Happen all the time. He hasn’t been faced yet with a GOP House.
It’s regrettable that Biden would rule out ending debt cap limits as such.
The argument usually made by progressives that once Congress has voted to authorize expenditures, they ought to come up with the funding to do them is a good one.
However, pols are usually not able to exhibit restraint when authorizing funds and look upon the current practice as a last-ditch opportunity to avoid spending, usually on social programs it seems. Alas, a tool for the GOP to get their way.
He could change his mind too. Depends on how things work out.
If the Dems lose the Senate, why wouldn’t Sinema and/or Manchin join the GOP?
One reason might be that they would not be sincerely welcomed by others in that party.
Despite their differences with other Democrats, they are much too far apart from the Republicans to fit in. For example, Manchin is a strong supporter of higher taxes on the wealthy, and I’m fairly sure Sinema is an atheist, besides being bisexual.
“…besides being openly bisexual.”
Well, the GOP has Lindsay Graham.
You mean “Spanky?”
You know Ron
When some of my opponents wished to dispute. They never attacked the meaning. It was an attack on the choice or lack of choice of the words being used. Superficial shit, you know. Everything said could be 100% correct dependent upon if the listening, and in this case the reading, person “wanted” to accept it. A choice has to be made as to whether to accept the word(s) based upon intent or argue (discuss) the use of the words. One ploy is to dispute the words and not the meaning or intent. It leaves the basis or point adrift and the discussion changes to something else.
Of course, this is all based upon the other person and whether they wish to be helpful or a ???
Understood, but I will always go for the joke when it is so obviously available. How many more Republicans are like Larry Craig, the scandalous former US Senator from Idaho? The literature on this suggests about 10% of Republican politicians are in the closet same as good ol’ Larry, but just have not been caught yet.
OTOH, assuming that most people understand what they read is taking a gigantic leap of faith.
Don’t ask – don’t smell.
A pleasure to be able to agree with you.
Unfortunately I can’t hope the debt ceiling will actually be lifted. It gives the politicians so much pleasure and electoral advantage to be able to posture as debt fighters while still voting for tax cuts and their favorite programs…including the D’s whose favorite programs never seem to actually quite solove the people’s problem, but make feel-good talking points.
good point about changing the argument from subtance to “words.” Seems to me I have faced that problem a few times. I certainly never worried about Lindsay Graham’s sexual orientation, because he is a snake.
But you see how it goes. We face a Congress and a President who are going to play the debt limit game while serious needs go unmet. It may have been in the cards that “democracy” would descend into a clown show, but of course the prior alternative pretty much did the same thing in its time. And the clowns are not funny.
Remember the discussion on MMT? There is some truth to it which most people do not understand.
Lindsey Graham is saddled with a name which can bring derisive remarks when growing up. Not really the meaning of the remark and neither is orientation. “Spanky” was a character in the “Our Gang” series of black and white TV shows. Spanky was also the leader of the “he-man’s and women-hater club” which he created as an act of revenge after none of the boys are invited to the Girls’ party.
I envision Graham looking a lot like “Spanky” when Graham was a child. Hence the nickname.
here is just another aspect of a problem (“the problem”) i face all the time.
there was some discussion here about sexual orientation and Graham got mentioned so i put two and two together, which as we all know is….uh…five? no, three. yes that’s it, actually two twos must be two.
you and I have had a few more serious conversations that went to hell because of “words.” not your fault. maybe my fault because I am supposed to know about such things. but the fact is that “knowing about” isn’t all that much help when it comes to “doing something about.”
glad for the story about Spanky. apologies to Graham for sexual orientation allusions, not so much for the snakey thing. as for having a girl’s name… when i grew up the only Dale anyone had heard of was Evans, and that was enough to give them an excuse to …or a weapon…to hate me with. marked my character forever. if i had been a talented baseball player or even race car driver it would have turned out different.
for where we lost the thread, see Dobbs @ 2:23.
always a pleasure to agree with Dobbs, too.
All I said (not at 2:23) was that the GOP would not necessarily welcome any Dem crossovers, particularly if they already have even a slight majority after Nov 8. If it would push their Senate count over 60, probably they would, however. All they need to get their committee chairmanships back is 51 Senators. It’d be practically impossible to get to 58 this time around.
yes, that’s all true, but the “thread” was about eliminating the “debt ceiling”
which, apparently, the Democratic President tinks would be irresponsible.
Biden is trying to hold on to his slimmest of majorities in the Senate.
To do this he needs to hold on to Manchin & Sinema, at least.
But if he loses control of the Senate otherwise, they could go.
Therefore, they would not be likely to vote for ending the limit-cap during the lame-duck period, IMO.
Despite what I’ve written here, if the Dems can do away with future debt-limit voting requirements, in the interim after election day, they should take the opportunity to do so. At worst, it should make far-fetched expenditure proposals in the future Congresses harder to enact.
despite what you’ve written here, i agree with you @ 12:37 am Oct 28.
the debt-limit ceiling is just another landmine in the road so the R’s can blow up any progress toward sane government.
Woman hater club kind of fits Republican beliefs today.
i dunno. i kinda hate marjorie taylor greene and ms Bobert and a lot of other women who have proved they are every bit equal to men in viciousness and insane stupidity.
it is unfortunate that in order to get votes, the D’s have had to sign on to the idea that it’s all about women or other “minorities” instead of human rights for all of us equally.
women, if i can get away with saying it, are a special case…they can have babies so certain rights apply to men that in detail don’t affect men, just as certain rights violated affect blacks more than whites due to the accidents of history..but in both cases the fundamental rights are human rights not “minority rights.” the rights are better understood as the right to be free from “government” (that’s all of us, especially “the majority”) violation of our bodies, lives, and freedom.
and, unfortunately, these rights cannot be rationally understood, or accepted, without adding…”except”…when necessary to protect the same rights of each of us from each of us. and that gets sticky…espeially when none of us really believe in the rights of all of us.
Bobert gets capitalized because otherwise spell check insists i meant Robert.
you mean, like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren and Bobert?
AB no longer taking comments on this?
Run @Oct 24, 1:00 pm
You mean, like Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Bobert?
still refused to take my comment on this.
Must try to remember that the GOP regards preventing debt-ceiling limits as ‘last-chance’ opportunities to eliminate ‘wasteful government spending’ even though has already received House & Senate approval. That’s why they will fight a rules-change, tooth & nail.
A few Dems at least are sympathetic to this, as we all know.