Bipartisan Lawmakers Preparing Plan to Avert Debt-Ceiling Crisis

Actually ALL 4 of Those Balanced Budgets are Credited to Bill Clinton (who prepared and proposed the 2001 Fiscal Year Budget, Covering Oct. 2000 to Sep. 2001)...
The United States Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, was a spending request by President Bill Clinton to fund government operations for October 2000-September 2001.
Clinton had budget surpluses for fiscal years 1998–2001, the only such years from 1970 to 2018. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses

 

This is interesting. On the one hand, it will probably piss off the Freedom Caucus. Second, if it does and McCarthy calls for a vote, then the next question is will there be that one member to call for McCarthy to vacate the office of Speaker of the House?

 

Congress controls the purse string and the budget. What was the makeup of congress during those times?

 

I asked which ones are concerned with the debt and deficit? Yes I know they just want unlimited spending. This IS about the budget and how the current budget is hitting our spending limit so let's do something about it. The "clean bill:" thingy is just a red herring.

 

1998, 1999, 2000 Gingrich/Kaisch and Republican budget and fiscal policy.
2001-2007 Bush and Republican Congress Republican budget and fiscal policy

Clinton requested more spending than Congress authorized each year he was in office and forced to sign those Republican budgets which restrained spending growth along with tax cuts which increases revenues into the treasury and welfare reform which cut expenses and created more new taxpayers.

 

Then you should have no problem refuting it

The last two times we had budget surpluses or paltry deficits were when Republicans were in control and because of their policies. When have the Dems done so when they were in control and because of their policies?

Which Dems are CURRENTLY concerned about the debt and deficits?

 

Fake news.

 

You are trying so hard for a 'hot take' that you miss the plot.

Manchin looks to strike deal with McCarthy to rein in wasteful government spending.

'Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said he is in the process of setting up a meeting with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., to rein in the federal government's wasteful spending and to focus on possible permitting rules that could potentially open West Virginia's Mountain Valley Pipeline.'

Dems openly screwed him on the pipeline after he was dumb enough to go their most recent Red Ink Orgy that continues to reduce the real wages of the American Worker.



Discussion, compromise, and resolution lies at the very heart of our political system.



Biden's "anything but US Energy" boondoggle:

'The Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee shifted to energy production during the segment, criticizing Biden's push for Iranian oil.'

'He went on to criticize the administration's additional push for Venezuelan oil while neglecting to seek increased production from domestic suppliers.'

Remember, they hate America, once you realize that, their actions being to make a bit of sense.

 

Yea and the same republican house put 5 trillion dollar debt between 2001 – 2006. Republican can only do balance budget when Democrats in charge of the country like Clinton but when republican like Bush in charge of the country, same republican spend money like water. First two years of Trump administration when Republican controlled congress spent another 2 trillion dollars.

 

Ok . In last 22 years US debt went from 5 trillion to 30 trillion. Out of that 22 years democrats controlled congress only 8 years. I assume other 12 years GOP racked up at least half of the debt.

 

I am well aware of it. But I think you are intentionally ignoring that any compromise on the debt ceiling might invoke that one-person rule to vacate the chair and the Freedom Caucus has the power to do so if they don't like what they see in the compromise. This compromise IS NOT going to be friendly to the Freedom Caucus or the hard-liners on either side of the aisle. In addition, if we do go into a recession and the debt ceiling is tied to GDP, then Congress would be unable to act fiscally to help Americans with the recession because tax cuts would mean increased deficits in the long run. What they are really trying to do is make everything "revenue neutral" when it comes to bills including the budget, so some tax cuts and some revenue raises in order to make those bills revenue neutral.

 

It's not being ignored, there is nothing novel about the Jefferson Rule. Nothing that dates to Thomas Jefferson is particularly new or surprising.

You are rambling on about a number of things seemingly bounded only by your imagination and your frantic desire for a damaging train wreck.

The WH is lying, they will negotiate.
The Dems in the Senate are lying, they too will negotiate.
Nobody will get everything that they want, and no one will walk away with nothing.

Some incremental progress will be made during the debt ceiling negotiations with the real improvement in fiscal health occuring with the budgets for the next fiscal year.

 

The WH and SOH McCarthy are not budging on their demands, hence why the compromise is being done. But the problem still persists per the new House Rules with that one-person rule that is in play. This means that McCarthy is forced to do what he is doing now, not backing down. Eventually, it will be the rank and file of most of the other members of Congress. And my argument is that if this compromise is passed and the Freedom Caucus does not like what it sees, then there is a high chance that McCarthy's no-confidence vote will commence soon thereafter, which will nullify the compromise to begin with. It is not something that is out of reach for the Freedom Caucus.

So, the question remains, will you back the Freedom Caucus if they decide to vote to vacate the Speaker of the House if the compromise of the debt ceiling is something that is not likeable with the Freedom Caucus? And if you we have a debt ceiling tied to GDP, say a maximum of 135% of GDP. Currently it is at 129%. Making it any lower would be very detrimental to the economy and 135% gives some room in case we have a recession. If you make it any lower than the current rate would impede Congress on doing what is necessary if we have a recession later on in the year.

So, you may want to stop playing checkers and start playing chess.

 

The Jefferson rule isn't new, it dates to Thomas Jefferson. McCarthy isn't a dictator he represents the majority of the House.

As long as he has the support of ANY 218 House members, and that 218 can be any mix of Democrats/Republicans/Independents, he remains in his position. are you arguing for him to be able to remain as the head of the majority even if he doesn't have majority support?

Are you claiming that he supports a position at variance with the House majority? What evidence do you have of that?

You are presuming a party line vote. The majority can be made up of any 218 House members. There are 222 GOP House members, so even a party line vote can pass as long as there are not more than 4 defections not set off by a Democrat vote. Currently the Freedom Caucus has 53 members, so just 49 agreeable Democrats are necessary to balance them off on a position held by the majority.

It's at 113% of GDP

​

It only has to be increased by enough to get through the rest of the fiscal year. The budget for the next fiscal year should determine how much more borrowing everyone is agreeable with and increase the debt ceiling by that amount.

135% of GDP is ridiculous.

​

​

You need some new material

 

The total deficit for that period was 1.3 trillion. With Bush as President and a Republican Congress the $400 deficit following the 2001 recession was back down to $161B and falling fast into another surplus, what is your complaint? And "spent" and "deficit" are two different things. The first two years of the Trump/Rep created $1.4 in deficit spending. And I agree we need more fiscal conservatives and fewer Dems and Rinos in Congress. Do you think you will get more of them on the Dem side or on the Rep side?

 

We Dems like spending money. We don’t hide that. No , you will not find more Dems who will be fiscally conservative. Liberal and fiscally conservatism is a oxymoron concept.

But as I said there is no such things fiscally conservative Republican. GOP only became fiscally conservative when Democrat occupy WH. As soon as a Republican became President , all fiscal conservative became drunken sailor or as you call them RINO. Same RINO became good “fiscally conservative” as soon WH change party.

 

I'm compelled to agree with you as both parties are addicted to spending and debt.. But I don't think it's really fair to just say "either" or blame Democrats or Republican here in the shlt for the mishandling of our home/country! It's like having your choice of turd soup or turd soup today! MPO, the only people willing to take office does it for self-enrichment and even if they are filled with good intentions it isn't long before the OLD GAURD introduce them to the game plan and even the best of intentions is cast to the wayside and they play along to get along!

 

Never said it was. What i was arguing, and what you are continuing to ignore, is what happens if the Freedom Caucus does not like the compromise. Will they invoke the rule?

that means he can only lose five Republicans. and the Freedom Caucus has some twenty-plus members. You do the math. If the freedom caucus does not like the compromise, and they usually dont, that means some 20 some Republicans will vote against him and we will have to choose another SOH and go through this fiasco again.

But you are intentionally ignoring that, aren't you?

The current debt to GDP ratio is above 130% right now. that is all public debt. And that is the most important. Hence 135% is reasonable.


https://tradingeconomics.com/united...ernment Debt to GDP in,percent of GDP in 1981.

You are using old data that does not account for what is in 2022 right now.

 

I answered it at length, and used small words without too many syllables, you should be able to follow the answer.

That's fake news. The GROSS debt is only 113%. The public debt is even less.

More Fake News. The graph runs through Q3/2022 which is the latest figure available from the Federal Reserve, for Gross Domestic Product.

Annualized Gross Federal Debt as of Q3/22 is $29,117B
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Market Value of Gross Federal Debt [MVGFD027MNFRBDAL], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MVGFD027MNFRBDAL, January 25, 2023.

Annualized GDP as of Q3/22 is $25,723.941B
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product [GDP], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP, January 25, 2023.

$29,117B/$25,723.941B = 113%

You have a computer, you have access to the primary sources, Al Gore made sure that you have the internet, you represent yourself as having a three digit IQ, if you haven't learned by now that news sources cannot be blindly followed, you are unteachable. Look things up for yourself.

The Federal debt is currently at 113% and agreeing that the Federal Government can borrow a 1.35 for every dollar of GDP is just not a smart concept. Agree to that and they will borrow $1.35 for every $1.00 of Gross Domestic Product, and they will do so immediately, while immediately starting to demand that we raise it to $1.40 for every $1.00 of Gross Domestic product.

First of all, we don't work for them, they work for us.

Second of all, how does the Federal Government running up a Federal Debt of 135% of GDP 'solve' anything?

135% of current GDP is $39,307.95B

That's an increase of $10,190.95B

Why in the world would we need to increase the debt limit by TEN TRILLION DOLLARS just to get from here to Sept 30?

 

Recent US Total Government Revenue


Chart R.01t: Recent Total Revenue



Chart R.02t: Recent Total Revenue as Pct GDP

Total Revenue was increasing strongly, year on year, in the mid 2000s from $4.1 trillion to $4.6 trillion in 2007. But total revenues cratered in the Great Recession, down to a about $3.9 trillion in 2009. In the subsequent recovery total revenues increased rapidly to $4.5 trillion by 2011. After a glitch in 2012 revenues increased steadily to an a little over $6 trillion in 2016. Estimated total revenue for 2022 was $8.51 trillion.
https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue_chart
...
Revenue is fairly consistent.

 

Gov't income as a % of GDP has been pretty consistent for decades. Blows that take as much money as possible out of the water.

Recent US Total Government Revenue


Chart R.01t: Recent Total Revenue



Chart R.02t: Recent Total Revenue as Pct GDP

Total Revenue was increasing strongly, year on year, in the mid 2000s from $4.1 trillion to $4.6 trillion in 2007. But total revenues cratered in the Great Recession, down to a about $3.9 trillion in 2009. In the subsequent recovery total revenues increased rapidly to $4.5 trillion by 2011. After a glitch in 2012 revenues increased steadily to an a little over $6 trillion in 2016. Estimated total revenue for 2022 was $8.51 trillion.
https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue_chart

 

It being consistent doesn't mean they're taking less. It means that's the amount they're taking ANNUALLY. Now ask yourself if we need an 8.5 trillion dollar government. So I was being accurate. It's freaking expensive.

 

Nope, it doesn't mean they're taking less.
But I posted in response to this.

 

I think 8 trillion is a ton of money but the operative words being 'as possible'. You don't think the government wouldn't like to push that revenue up to 10 trill or more?

 

Yes you fight for it, Biden and the Dems willing to shutdown the government to get it even now even though we see the results with the historic inflation we are seen and the skyrocketing debt we are having to pay even MORE interest on as rates are being increase to try and soften the recession we going into.

There are certainly fewer as the RINO's have seen the Dems winning by giving away free stuff and we certainly need more of them now. And if you are talking about Trump he wasn't necessarily a fiscal conservative I never looked at him as one but he DID attempt to get across the board spending cuts and submitted them but President have the least influence on spending of the three bodies involved.

Trump Budget Cuts Size of Federal Government, but Bolder Reforms Needed

KEY TAKEAWAYS
The president’s budget includes $4.4 trillion in proposed spending cuts.

The president’s 2021 budget makes significant progress in reducing the government’s reach and returning power to the people.

The president’s budget proposes $740.5 billion in national defense spending, consistent with the level provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019.

President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2021 would reduce the size and reach of the federal bureaucracy significantly by shifting government responsibilities back to constitutional priorities and empowering state and local governments.

These reforms, contained in the request Trump sent Monday morning to Congress, would put the budget on track to balance and represent a significant first step toward reducing spending and stabilizing the nation’s unsustainable debt....
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and...size-federal-government-bolder-reforms-needed