I wanted to make sure I completely understood the restrictions placed on the recent debt ceiling increase, so I went and looked at S.610, the enabling bill. Here it is:
Plainly, Democrats can raise the debt ceiling by any amount they want. So why are they raising it by only $2.5 trillion? Why not double or triple that, so there's no debt ceiling fight anytime before the 2024 election?
Or, for that matter, increase it by $100 trillion and put the whole thing to rest? Is there a crafty political reason for not doing this? Or is it because certain senators won't go along? Can someone explain, please?
I'd go with the "certain senators." Like the honourable Mr. Manchin and every single Republican. They need to actually abolish the "debt ceiling", given that the Constitution states that the debts of the United States will not be questioned. That is, if Congress appropriates the money, and tax revenues are insufficient to cover it, debt will be issued. Period. That's just how it works.
But, like the "electoral college" and filibuster, Republicans have gotten so much mileage out of the debt ceiling and its opportunities for blocking majority rule, the only way to get rid of it is ... elect more Democrats. A LOT more. And then, you'd still have the "conservatives" and "traditionalists" who don't want any changes to "The Best Deliberative Body in All of World History", or whatever they're calling themselves this week.
So, more Democrats and better Democrats. Simple.
Like!
Theory #1: they're worried how it'll look in the campaign ads.
Theory #2: they like the brinksmanship.
I'm more partial to #1. (Though I agree they should just raise it enough to not deal with for a very long time.)
Agree: Easy Republican ad: "Senator X voted for a totally irresponsible additional $X trillion in government spending, totally wasteful but typical Democrat."
Any attempt at an explanation would seem false and contrived, even though totally reasonable.
Unless you raised it by $1 quintillion or some other absurd number. If you make it absurd, it's still a number, and TBH not really any different in voters' minds than what they're already going to get hammered for ("Democrats want to add $2.5T to the debt!"). The numbers at the scale of the federal budget are already so far out of a regular person's ken that it doesn't really matter what number you pick.
Just pick one that's "never" going to be reached.
Of course, that means you can't have Manchinema blocking it, but it's something they could have conceivably done with more than 50 senators.
This.
Not just campaign ads, but mainstream headlines:
BREAKING: DEMOCRATS INCREASE DEBT CEILING BY $10 TRILLION!
. . . is followed by quotes from Ron Johnson or Mitch McConnell or some other ratfucker twisting it into "Democrats are ADDING $10 trillion dollars to the national credit card that your poor hard-working children will have to pay for!"
And, of course, no reporter will push back and say "But actually this does not add a penny to the debt, and you know that." Instead, they'll get a quote from Chuck Schumer saying "My friends across the aisle are mistakenly conflating a procedural anomaly with a legislatively prescribed appropriation, bless their hearts."
Heh. Well said.
There's approximately zero difference in effectiveness between an ad attacking Democrats for raising the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion and one attacking Democrats for raising the debt ceiling by $999 trillion.
(Well, there is one difference: the latter would be the last time the GOP can do it for generations.)
Democrats are stupid and craven in equal measures. This is a nice companion piece to the unilateral disarmament on gerrymandering.
Look at the title of this article.
Then think of the big Democratic Majority: 50.0% + the tie-breaker.
Then think of the name Joe Manchin.
There you go--you have your answer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/13/manchin-blind-trust-enersystems-stock-climate-change/
This was above the fold on Page 1 of The Washington Post today. Some people seem to be more determined or impatient for Manchin's pretenses to be publicized, along with items about not just the houseboat visited by his Republican friends, but other Democrats with conservative voting records- & his expensive Italian car. His frequent new excuses for not being willing to vote for Democratic legislation, but being eager to be "courted" to join his fellow Dems in voting, ought to stop, if he has any shame.
His claims of being concerned about the future of his ten grandchildren ring hollow; I doubt that I'm the only one who doesn't worry about his children or their children, but about many of his impoverished West Virginia constituents.
I would guess they (Dem leadership including Biden, Pelosi, Schumer etc) are scared of the GOP attacks and media coverage shitstorm that would ensue following democrats increasing the debt ceiling by 100 trillion or even 10 trillion. It would all be stupid and disingenuous, but when has that ever mattered?
Does it make more sense to just bit the bullet on some bad press now? Maybe, but the democrats are not known for bold risk taking or media savvy.
Once you've already had to use the word "trillion" behind your digits, you're already in danger of a media coverage shitstorm. It's not like the negative TV ads that can be formed around the number 10 or 100 trillion can't also be formed around the number 1 trillion.
I'm with you....
Trump added, what, $4 Trillion to the debt while in office, and his tax breaks are the gift that keep on giving, so he's piled on even more...
So the debt increase should be the Paying for Donald J. Trump bill...
Which they already did, of course - resulting in trump & his cowed enablers complaining that McConnell "helped" Biden by voting to raise the ceiling - to cover what the trump administration's
spending. But this isn't what most people hear about, & it is as misunderstood, unnecessary, & wrong as the filibuster. If we can't get rid of these absurd procedural relics & gerrymandering, we at least to work harder on them & on the states' initiative that might work to improve their results for the Electoral College, since a constitutional amendment isn't a possibility now.
Why not repeal the debt ceiling legislation in its entirety? It serves no purpose at all other than as a tool for extortion and nobody should have the slightest doubt that the GOP would get rid of the debt ceiling, the filibuster, and anything else that they needed to in order to cut taxes for the wealthy.
Which is what they should have done with this artifact from WW I.
Because then it would require legislation to issue new debt every tine the treasury had an auction of t-Bills. The debt ceiling was introduced to make it easier to issue debt during ww1. The constitution requires congressional approval of new debt. Bu yes, you could and should cover this by including raising the debt whenever appropriations bills are passed.
Normally the Lefty swipes at Manchin are tedious and overdone. However in this instance the focus on him is likely well-placed (and indeed it's quite absurd not to take the occasion to raise the limit by a reasonably significant amount although I suppose there may be some calculation about a Trump II presidency and a pressure point in the back of some kinds, although this is such an assymetrical situation if such a calculation is in any mind, it is likely rather misplaced).
No it isn't. The ize of the debt increase was a requirement for the republicans to waive the filibuster. Nothing at all to do with Manchin,
Regardless of whether it's Manchin alone, a bunch of Democratic senators or the whole party, the reason is the same: reflexive rank cowardice in the face of the inevitable Trump Republican attacks.
Of course the attacks will come anyway, and few swing voters will take any notice. But at least the less-rabid right-wing pundits will concede the attacks are a little dishonest, and that's the important thing.
I was recently reading a usually bullish Wall St. analyst who uses Elliott Wave Theory. He says his charts show we're headed for a 10- to 20-year bear market / worldwide depression beginning around 2023. I usually find those kinds of predictions to be a joke. C'mon! Really? How could that possibly be? But giving the crazies in the House a loaded weapon a year before a pivotal election might be one way to get it started. I may want to reread that forecast.
That's nuts. When has there ever been a 10-20 year bear market?
The great depression. Both 2000 and 2007 were 7 year bears.
The fact that kevin , from a democratic perspective, can refer to 2.5 trillion as a " puny amount " , and pretty much the democratic commenters here just accept that illustrates your political blindness ..and why it looks like Republicans may have a huge mid term victory.
There are decent arguments that the debt ceiling should be raised by more or even abolished. Make those arguments. But referring to 2 5 trillion as a " puny amount " , which I find hard to think Kevin or most of you actually seriously believe, as a sort of political winning talking point is really really stupid.
Much of the American public is scared not as much re democratic policies and priorities but that democrats seem not to be taking the risks of spending too much seriously . Pooh poohing inflation concerns and referring to TRILLIONS as "puny " scares people that democrats are not dealing with reality.
a) How much is the deficit?
b) How much is the national debt?
c) How much should the debt limit be raised?
You know how many people have answers to these questions?
NOBODY.
NOBODY GIVES A SHIT.
Raise people's taxes, they give a shit. Take away their healthcare, they give a shit. Hike the price of gas, they give a shit. But NOBODY gives a shit about the debt limit.
Why give a shit about things people don't give a shit about?
Pooh poohing inflation concerns and referring to TRILLIONS as "puny " scares people that democrats are not dealing with reality.
JFC. Do you have any idea of the records of Republicans and Democrats the last 40 years?
If you were really scared about the national debt, what do you think would be a better solution?
a) Cutting the federal deficit
b) Running a higher level of inflation than we've had in recent years
I assume you know the right answer.
If you really did care about anything, you'd care about the chart at the link, which actually looks quite good, better than every year from 1980 to 2000, two decades that most people consider very good times economically.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
If you had actually read and understood my post , you could see that nothing I said is relevant to your ranting criticism here.
I deliberately and specifically did not take any position on whether the debt ceiling should have been raised, whether it should have been raised by more or whether spending is too high. All the things you are attacking are not points I was making. All I was saying is that characterizing 2.5 trillion as " puny " is a horrible way to talk about the issue. It is just that way of referring to it that is going to alienate the general public, who really do not understand the issues in detail, as I think you were saying. And that is true regardless of whether someone scared that this indicates democrats are careless is right in that concern.
Especially when I do not think many here really do think 2.5 trillion is a " puny amount " .
I hear this sort of silly counterproductive talking point way too often, including by Biden or Psaki.
What do you think you are accomplishing by this sort of talking point. Maybe it is just really sarcastic as in you know it really is not puny. But that does not work when things are so crazy and partisan that nobody is sure you are joking . And goes both ways . Trump made a number of silly joking comments that were not serious but democrats overreacted taking them as serious. But in end result trump was at fault as he should realize he cannot make joking or sarcastic comments because too many will just think he is enough of an idiot to really think that . And Republicans can believe Democrats are idiots enough to think anything stupid too. But real crux is that those in the middle- the few persuadables - consider partisans on either side complete idiots .
So just do not use language that requires people to understand you are joking.
Anything that can be taken the wrong way if taken literally just do not say in this environment.
And let me address one of the substantive points you made from that chart . Actually I do think the chart paints a misleading picture.
And reality can make your argument that things are not so bad first better, then worse , then maybe better and yet worse again ..
1) that chart shows interest on debt as a % age of the economy in nominal terms . Which is not a great indication of the real burden. What really counts is interest as a % of gnp In real terms .
Consider an economy with a consistent inflation rate of 10% per year . That rate never changes . And nominal interest on the debt is 11% of gnp. Versus one with consistent inflation of 1% with interest on the debt of 3% nominal. It is the latter that has a more serious debt issue .
So , in real terms, interest on the debt is even lower and maybe even negative today .
2) but that is short term . Real interest on the debt tends to go down when inflation rises, especially if inflation is unanticipated. That is because most of the interest is locked in at low rates for longer term bonds for earlier periods when inflation expectations were low. And the reverse is true when inflation goes down like in early 80s . Real debt burden goes up then.
3) and I think you were alluding to the effect that inflation, if unanticipated, can basically restyle debt by inflating it away . Essentially a partial default through inflation screwing all the creditors. Other nations that are not reserve currencies where they can borrow in their own currency cannot do that the same way . If in trouble, they have to really default.
But that will only work once really, especially if the world sees it as a deliberate strategy. Because they will not lend to you like that anymore and you lose your position as a reserve currency. Very dangerous. Plus not very moral. Although with China a major holder of us bonds, not exactly crying over screwing them through inflation.
4) but, so far , as kevin has correctly pointed out, longer term inflationary expectations have not really jumped up all that much, no matter much of the short term hysteria . So far the us and democrats this year have gotten away with a lot of huge covid deficits and a fairly large spending packages or two , not fully paid for , without yet triggering the sort of dangerous long term inflationary expectations.
5) but be careful. There might be a line too far where you do trigger that and it starts the ball rolling in a way hard to stop. Would passing bbb be going too far, especially with the gimmicky expirations? Maybe. I think most do not now expect it to pass so current inflationary expectations are based on that.
And really everyone seems to ignore the earlier reconciliation package with a good amount of spending and the infrastructure bill. Combined they are a pretty good political result for democrats without Bbb in first year given such a shaky senate and house majority.
And took me a little while to figure out what you meant by " JFC". I guess I know where you are in the religiosity department.
Much of the American public is scared not as much re democratic policies and priorities but that democrats seem not to be taking the risks of spending too much seriously
Stop making shit up.
My, my, what an innumerate little troll you are. But I get it. No, I really do: Arithmetic, logic, carefully constructed arguments are far, far beyond anything you're capable of. I could throw you a bone and say you're intellectually challenged.
But I'l be hard on you and tell the truth: you're yet another lazy little git incapable of putting in a full day's honest work. Now fuck off, you disrespectful little shit.
Funny, you never seem concerned about the Republicans approach to spending and the debt limit.
There are apparently, only seven countries that have something like a debt ceiling.
Denmark
Malaysia
Kenya
Poland
Pakistan
Nambia
I think the list speaks for itself - outside of noting that the Danes a decade ago boosted their ceiling so high, it will be another decade or more before they have to address the issue.
The answer:
If you realistically expect a midterm flip of at least the House, you know that at some point in 2023 the Republicans will have to reclaim ownership of the federal debt.
That comes at a cost of a public display of the GOP's internal reckoning between good governance and their notion of good fiscal stewardship.
I think most Democratic strategists count on total chaos and a few shutdowns along the way, once again reminding Americans of the wishy-washy spectrum sometimes called "moderates", that Republicans suck at governance.
My first thought was that this was part of the deal with McConnell. I see that I’m not the only one who has thought of this:
“ “Democrats of course would’ve wanted to raise [the debt limit] by a bajillion,” one senior Democratic Senate aide told me, but the $2.5 trillion number—which kicks the debt limit to 2023—“was part of the deal Democrats cut with Republicans.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/12/debt-ceiling-2-5-trillion-2023-democrats.html
I really would like to know if anyone on this blog has an amount of government debt that the country would not sustain? I get the impression that most people think that money grows on trees. We are 27T and counting. At some point, leaves will be worth more than the American dollar.
Ask yourself first what is the actual net worth of the United States.
Then, ask yourself what percentage of national income goes to servicing debt.
Finally, extrapolate how much economic growth is likely over the next, say, 30 years.
Then you'll find your point.
Certain senators won't go along.
Certain other senators want to use it as a cudgel next time Republicans are in charge.