12 ms·

Let’s be clear it’s not “every couple of years”. It’s “every time there is a democratic president, the republican-controlled legislative branches refuse to rais

Let’s be clear it’s not “every couple of years”. It’s “every time there is a democratic president, the republican-controlled legislative branches refuse to raise the debt ceiling”. How many times has this ever happened in reverse? Democrats must stop compromising with people that blatantly do not operate in good faith.

WJW 3y ago
Looking from outside the USA: If they don't cooperate then the budget won't be approved at all, no? It's all good and well not to want to cooperate with people that don't act in good faith, but since the other party has almost half the seats in the senate and a majority in the house of reps then how do you govern at all?
- firebird84 3y ago
  The budget is already approved, the debt limit has nothing to do with it, it's just a cudgel with which one party bludgeons the other. It serves no other purpose.
networkchad 3y ago
[dead]
unsupp0rted 3y ago
> How many times has this ever happened in reverse? How many times have democrats been pro-gun and anti-abortion? Of course republicans play games with the debt ceiling- part of their platform is predicated on cutting government income / spending.
- Eric_WVGG 3y ago
  If that were true they would be consistent about the debt ceiling while there were republican presidents in office. That’s what “bad faith” means.
- pavlov 3y ago
  The difference is that Republicans are pro debt ceiling only when they’re not in power, but happy to take trillions more debt when they are. Democrats don’t suddenly pass anti-abortion bills when they have the House.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > Of course republicans play games with the debt ceiling- part of their platform is predicated on cutting government income / spending. Part of their _campaigning_ is on cutting government spending. But when they're actually elected the spending goes up. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budget-receipts-and-outlays https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budg...
logifail 3y ago
> it’s not “every couple of years” "Since 1960, Congress has raised, extended, or revised the debt limit 78 separate times, of which 49 were under Republican presidents and 29 were under Democratic presidents, according to the Department of Treasury. In each of those instances, Congress took action on the debt limit before the nation defaulted."[0] > Democrats must stop compromising with people that blatantly do not operate in good faith. I wouldn't want any politician (regardless of party allegiance) to agree on any spending if there is not also an agreement on how to finance such spending. If companies or individuals were to run their own finances like politicians run government finances, they'd go bankrupt and/or land in jail pretty quickly. Why should our elected representatives (yes, all of them!) not have to worry about this stuff? [0] https://time.com/6281003/debt-ceiling-history/ https://time.com/6281003/debt-ceiling-history/
- CaptainMarvel 3y ago
  Thank you for the additional facts, I was only looking at the most recent 25 years and "debt ceiling crises" on Wikipedia.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jrockway 3y ago
  > I wouldn't want any politician (regardless of party allegiance) to agree on any spending if there is not also an agreement on how to finance such spending. In the case of the debt ceiling spats, Congress has literally already authorized the money to be spent. The debt ceiling prevents the executive branch from borrowing money to spend according to Congress's wishes. That's why everyone thinks it's weird.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > Congress has literally already authorized the money to be spent If you were a business or a family, you'd talk about how you plan to agree to finance any serious purchase before (or at the very least in parallel ) with agreeing the purchase itself.
spacephysics 3y ago
I think we’re too in the weeds and too tribal with this analysis. Outside of privacy-invading legislature (or corporate legislature), both sides of the aisle fail to agree or compromise on working for the people. When there’s an opportunity to use leverage, it makes sense to use it. But it’s like MAD concept, they’re not going to actually let the US default. It’s not in either party’s self interest. Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game. To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it.
- PopAlongKid 3y ago
  >Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. But we're not talking about just "something", we're talking about paying the bills that have already been authorized.
- cmh89 3y ago
  >Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game. To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it. Can you provide some examples of Democratic controlled "X" threatening to default on the debt to achieve a policy goal? If you're going to play "both side-ism", you should provide some examples. I can't remember Democrats doing things equivalent to holding an economic gun to America's head.

WJW 3y ago

Looking from outside the USA: If they don't cooperate then the budget won't be approved at all, no? It's all good and well not to want to cooperate with people that don't act in good faith, but since the other party has almost half the seats in the senate and a majority in the house of reps then how do you govern at all?

firebird84 3y ago
The budget is already approved, the debt limit has nothing to do with it, it's just a cudgel with which one party bludgeons the other. It serves no other purpose.

networkchad 3y ago

[dead]

unsupp0rted 3y ago

> How many times has this ever happened in reverse? How many times have democrats been pro-gun and anti-abortion? Of course republicans play games with the debt ceiling- part of their platform is predicated on cutting government income / spending.

Eric_WVGG 3y ago
If that were true they would be consistent about the debt ceiling while there were republican presidents in office. That’s what “bad faith” means.
pavlov 3y ago
The difference is that Republicans are pro debt ceiling only when they’re not in power, but happy to take trillions more debt when they are. Democrats don’t suddenly pass anti-abortion bills when they have the House.
lesuorac 3y ago
> Of course republicans play games with the debt ceiling- part of their platform is predicated on cutting government income / spending. Part of their _campaigning_ is on cutting government spending. But when they're actually elected the spending goes up. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budget-receipts-and-outlays https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budg...

logifail 3y ago

> it’s not “every couple of years” "Since 1960, Congress has raised, extended, or revised the debt limit 78 separate times, of which 49 were under Republican presidents and 29 were under Democratic presidents, according to the Department of Treasury. In each of those instances, Congress took action on the debt limit before the nation defaulted."[0] > Democrats must stop compromising with people that blatantly do not operate in good faith. I wouldn't want any politician (regardless of party allegiance) to agree on any spending if there is not also an agreement on how to finance such spending. If companies or individuals were to run their own finances like politicians run government finances, they'd go bankrupt and/or land in jail pretty quickly. Why should our elected representatives (yes, all of them!) not have to worry about this stuff? [0] https://time.com/6281003/debt-ceiling-history/ https://time.com/6281003/debt-ceiling-history/

CaptainMarvel 3y ago
Thank you for the additional facts, I was only looking at the most recent 25 years and "debt ceiling crises" on Wikipedia.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jrockway 3y ago
> I wouldn't want any politician (regardless of party allegiance) to agree on any spending if there is not also an agreement on how to finance such spending. In the case of the debt ceiling spats, Congress has literally already authorized the money to be spent. The debt ceiling prevents the executive branch from borrowing money to spend according to Congress's wishes. That's why everyone thinks it's weird.
- logifail 3y ago
  > Congress has literally already authorized the money to be spent If you were a business or a family, you'd talk about how you plan to agree to finance any serious purchase before (or at the very least in parallel ) with agreeing the purchase itself.

spacephysics 3y ago

I think we’re too in the weeds and too tribal with this analysis. Outside of privacy-invading legislature (or corporate legislature), both sides of the aisle fail to agree or compromise on working for the people. When there’s an opportunity to use leverage, it makes sense to use it. But it’s like MAD concept, they’re not going to actually let the US default. It’s not in either party’s self interest. Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game. To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it.

PopAlongKid 3y ago
>Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. But we're not talking about just "something", we're talking about paying the bills that have already been authorized.
cmh89 3y ago
>Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game. To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it. Can you provide some examples of Democratic controlled "X" threatening to default on the debt to achieve a policy goal? If you're going to play "both side-ism", you should provide some examples. I can't remember Democrats doing things equivalent to holding an economic gun to America's head.