McConnell caves-in on debt ceiling, giving Dems what they want.

The occasionally rebuttal presumption should always be: Professional Politician = Crook.

“Obama had reserved some of the harshest words of his presidency for the Citizens United ruling, saying that he couldn't “Think of anything more devastating to the public interest." So he had steadfastly refused to encourage supporters to form an “outside” super PAC that could except unlimited contributions on his behalf. …”

“Soon after, Obama bowed to the new economic reality and reversed himself. His campaign began encouraging supporters to give to the pro-Obama super PAC, Priorities USA. It wasn't the first time Obama had been rendered a hypocrite in order to raise funds. In 2008, after championing campaign-finance reform in the Senate, he broke his own pledge to accept public financing as a presidential candidate.”"
DARK MONEY, The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Jane Mayer , Anchor Books, Penguin Random House LLC, New York 2017. P. 395. (emphasis mine)

 

Sure he did, but it would have been super interesting if the D's had turned this down. They almost always take the first offer than comes down the pike.

However, they wanted the debt issue pushed until after they done both their bills as well. If they can't get those done before December, that's gonna look real bad and people are going to be camping out in Sinema's bathroom with pitchforks...

 

I like your idea in principle I am just not sure how well that idea would work in practice. I doubt any politician or president would support the idea because it would probably cripple their agenda. Remember it is not just spending but debt. If we were to look at Trump's policies as an example how would he have been able to give his tax cuts. It is not like he decreased spending to offset the loss of tax revenue he increased it. One of his big campaign promises was increase spending on the military, again no corresponding cut in expenditures. In fact he took some of the money allocated to defense spending to pay for the wall. The trade war with China led to billions in subsidies paid to farmers whose crops were grown for export. How could he have executed these policies without the ability to increase the debt limit.

 

Politicians are playing a game of chicken with the nation's finances, threatening disaster if the other side doesn't give in.

An analogy can even be made here to the concept of mutually assured destruction that existed during the Cold War.

Democrats are threatening not to approve any budget if the Republicans do not allow them to spend more and add onto the debt.

If the Left is so much in favor of "increasing taxes on the rich" then why do they need to add on to the debt?
They have a spending problem.

 

January will bring an entirely different session of Congress, in a new calendar year. The fight we on the Right have/had right in our faces is/was right HERE, right NOW, this day! Or, at least it was a fight until McConnell decided to stop fighting and just give up....

 

All he really did was kick the can down the road.

 

He gave up on $500B. That is it.

 

Hell with it bro, the ones that suffer the most in this shitshow are the little people at the bottom.. Once they feel the pinch "and the poorest ones are always first" will cry the loudest..

We've been down this road many times and the poor are still poor, the ghetto's are still the ghetto's and politicians are ALWAYS rich and sassy!

 

The right has added a lot to the debt also to be fair but you are right to think any new taxes should be applied to our debt

 

I agree. It should be done away with so it can stop being something political parties try to weaponize.

It's not like we can ever responsibly not raise it and allow this country to default. The results of that would be catastrophic, and in no way worth doing just to appease those who want to scold the government for allowing the debt to become an issue.

 

Which will ultimately hurt the country's credit rating more, continuing to get into trillions more of debt, or having a temporary default, which everyone knows is caused by a short-term political fight and not the underlying finances and economics?

Maybe the country SHOULD have a little default. Otherwise it seems like they are just trying desperately to keep kicking the can down the road. An honest message should be sent to lenders that this is not sustainable.
If it's not a default that pushes interest rates up, it will eventually be inflation.
Why try to assure lenders everything is okay when it's not?

Do you plan to fund the country's finances by trying to rip off the investors?

When you've caused a big problem by getting into too much debt, you don't try to make that problem go away by doing more of what you've been doing. That's the mind of an addict.

If the country can't afford those interest rates going up, well, that should really make you think...

 

Valid points. I also support a balanced budget amendment.

 

I think he wants to fix infrastructure more than worry about how places doing abortions get paid.

 

No, the five hundred billion was just 'pocket-change'... nothing important... that's how their minds work, Democrats AND Republicans....

What McConnell really gave Democrats, on a 'silver platter', was the at-will use of their "nuclear option", which they were going to HAVE to keep in reserve for jacking up the debt limit on a unilateral option....

Now? There's absolutely no telling what these wannabe radical Democrat socialists will try to pull between now and next January.... Thanks, Mitch!

 

Totally agree, you cons should vote Moscow Mitch out of office !

 

And then prosecute his wife along with him for cronyism and corruption.

 

I finally understand McConnell’s tactic.

He said they can pass it using budget reconciliation that they want to use for the 3.5 trillion bill. Problem for democrats is the House parliamentarian decided the democrats could only use it one time this year. That is why I have been seeing democrat politicians claiming they should ignore the parliamentarian.

Dems are drunk on lust for power.

 

t's not REAL infrastructure the 3.5 trillion is about. The real infrastructure is already a go. He's just interested in the Social Engineering 3.5!

 

Will we ever get a handle on the debt:

 

To the surprise of no one...

 

If we could have a Democratic administration for long enough, no doubt we could. Obama was reducing the national deficit year after year. Democrats fund their spending. Republicans do not.

 

Republicans have a history of negotiation for a more fiscal government during the raising the debt ceiling negotiating. This isn't the first time they have done this.

 

Democrats will certainly not use the "reconciliation" process. If they were to they would have already done it. What's holding them up? Their only tactic is to try to shame them into getting on board with raising the ceiling key using the media and former Fed Chairmen.

 

Obama started with a budget deficit over a trillion dollars. That would have eventually come down to the normal $600B budget deficit.

 

Balanced budgets solve nothing. In business you can make a budget but if there are revenue shortfalls, you make spending cuts

Government doesn't follow the same steps because we've allowed that. They can draft a balanced budget with lofty forecasts of taxpayer dollars being taken.

Unlike business, if govt has a shortfall, they can simply take more from us

Hey, we are the ones who say sure, shut down the pipeline. Yes, make the cost of energy more expensive. Yes, charge carbon offsets where the taxes do nothing for the environment but instead drive up costs. And the list goes on

This is all at our feet