$4T Debt Limit Increase Proposal

[TylerDurden]

https://thehill.com/business/budget/5296087-house-gop-debt-limit-increase/amp/

"House Republicans are moving forward with plans to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by $4 trillion as part of a larger plan to advance President Trump’s tax agenda."

 

It sure seems like this is another example of Republicans running up the national deficit, despite claims that they're the party of fiscal responsibility. 

https://amarkfoundation.org/reports/u-s-presidents-and-the-federal-deficit/

[Bigbrog]

42 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

https://thehill.com/business/budget/5296087-house-gop-debt-limit-increase/amp/

"House Republicans are moving forward with plans to raise the nation’s debt ceiling by $4 trillion as part of a larger plan to advance President Trump’s tax agenda."

 

It sure seems like this is another example of Politicians running up the national deficit, despite claims that their side is the party of fiscal responsibility. 

https://amarkfoundation.org/reports/u-s-presidents-and-the-federal-deficit/

Here...fixed it for you

[TylerDurden]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Here...fixed it for you

Please read the information in the second link. 

[Bigbrog]

16 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

Please read the information in the second link. 

Doesn't change anything...for one, the deficit is a lagging indicator that takes into account many factors that happened in the past.  Both sides have contributed to it...to me it was a problem that was caused many many years ago, not sure by a D or an R but doesn't matter at this point, that politicians have been chasing, putting off and/or adding on to it year after year.  I personally hate that we raise the debt ceiling, but it is naive to think it has nothing to do with past decisions upon past decisions based on past decisions, and it's extremely stupid to scream and stomp your feet when the current president comes in and has to raise it because of previous administrations decisions (both D and R's).

[TylerDurden]

5 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Doesn't change anything...for one, the deficit is a lagging indicator that takes into account many factors that happened in the past.  Both sides have contributed to it...to me it was a problem that was caused many many years ago, not sure by a D or an R but doesn't matter at this point, that politicians have been chasing, putting off and/or adding on to it year after year.  I personally hate that we raise the debt ceiling, but it is naive to think it has nothing to do with past decisions upon past decisions based on past decisions, and it's extremely stupid to scream and stomp your feet when the current president comes in and has to raise it because of previous administrations decisions (both D and R's).

Interesting that overwhelming evidence of one party driving up the deficit and the other reducing it doesn't change anything for you.

You can certainly and rightly claim that both sides contribute to the deficit to some extent, depending on the specific legislation, but it's very clear that the Democratic presidential administrations have done a vastly superior job of managing the federal balance sheet.  The graph shows it in very simple terms and there is more detail below the graph in various charts. 

I'd also point out the the lag you're seemingly basing the entire crux of your argument on in order to lump both sides into this, isn't some drawn out thing that was caused many years ago. That is a more appropriate argument for the total national debt, but not the budget deficit. We can certainly include that in the discussion, but the same trends exist on that front. 

[Offthemat]

The message changes a bit when you attribute the majority of the Congress to the ups and downs.  

[mspart]

This is correct at least in part.   Clinton was on a path to increase the deficit.   1994, was the year of the Gingrich contract with America, the Ds got shellacked and R's took over and essentially forced Clinton to be more fiscally responsible.   Seeing the tea leaves, he moved in that direction anyway.  

Obama had a similar thing when deficits went down.  

It is correct the deficits went up under R admins but a look at the Congresses that provided the spending bills gives a story as well. 

mspart

[mspart]

AI Overview

Learn more

Since World War II, Democrats in Congress have been responsible for a larger share of the gross federal debt than Republicans, with Democrats accounting for about 74% and Republicans about 26%, according to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC). When considering debt held by the public, Democrats in Congress have incurred 90.3% while Republicans are responsible for 9.7%, according to the JEC. This includes debt held in intra-governmental accounts, which is primarily owed to Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

 

Search term:  US deficits by who controlled congress

 

That was easy.  Offthemat was correct.

 

mspart

[Offthemat]

Republican Presidents since at least Nixon have sought the line item veto to prevent this.  They’ve tried shutting the gov’t down.  

[mspart]

AI Overview

Learn more

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 allowed the President to cancel specific spending items or tax benefits within a bill, while still signing the rest of the bill into law. This act was later deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

So there is no line item veto.  Which is unfortunate I think. 

 

mspart

[Offthemat]

41 minutes ago, mspart said:

Which is unfortunate I think

I agree with you on that and I believe the court got this wrong.  The President should have more of a role in the budget if they’re going to make him sign it.  If it’s a line item they want bad enough, they can vote to override his veto.  This way it would only delay parts of the budget instead of him having to veto the entire budget or shut down the gov’t to make adjustments.  

[TylerDurden]

15 hours ago, mspart said:

AI Overview

Learn more

Since World War II, Democrats in Congress have been responsible for a larger share of the gross federal debt than Republicans, with Democrats accounting for about 74% and Republicans about 26%, according to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC). When considering debt held by the public, Democrats in Congress have incurred 90.3% while Republicans are responsible for 9.7%, according to the JEC. This includes debt held in intra-governmental accounts, which is primarily owed to Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

 

Search term:  US deficits by who controlled congress

 

That was easy.  Offthemat was correct.

 

mspart

You're citing the JEC Republican report that came out 15 years ago and was essentially trying to draw connections between the auto bailout (which Bush started) to Obama and continue this idea that it was reckless Democratic spending. 

https://goliards.us/adelphi/deficits/

You can't let AI do the work for you without reading the information. 

75% of largest increases in our country's history have been under either Republican majorities in the Senate and/or in the White House. The other one is a clean up of the housing market crash. 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by TylerDurden

[TylerDurden]

14 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I agree with you on that and I believe the court got this wrong.  The President should have more of a role in the budget if they’re going to make him sign it.  If it’s a line item they want bad enough, they can vote to override his veto.  This way it would only delay parts of the budget instead of him having to veto the entire budget or shut down the gov’t to make adjustments.  

The President should not have any more power with the budget. We have three branches for a reason, though they're admittedly on shaky ground. 

Presidents have enough power with the veto. 

I'm not sure why you'd support concentrating power. 

[red viking]

Fact: GOP IS THE PARTY OF RUNAWAY DEFICITS. NOT EVEN OPEN TO DEBATE. THEY KEEP SELLING THE BS "REDUCING TAX RATES INCREASES REVENUE" KOOL AID AND IDIOT WINGERS KEEP BUYING IT DESPITE ALL DATA PROVING OTHERWISE. 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, TylerDurden said:

I'm not sure why you'd support concentrating power.

I don’t see it as concentrating.  As it stands, the President has to veto the entire budget to address anything in the budget.  That’s nonsensical and chaotic.  The result of this scheme is we’re $37 trillion in debt now, projected to be $59 trillion in 10 years, and insolvent. 

[red viking]

Bond yields highest in 3 months today. Probably has something to do with GOPs blatant disregard of their runaway deficit spending. 

[jross]

It was a dumpster fire before.  Its a dumpster fire now.

CUT TAXES AND REDUCE THE SPENDING!

[red viking]

8 minutes ago, jross said:

It was a dumpster fire before.  Its a dumpster fire now.

CUT TAXES AND REDUCE THE SPENDING!

Dumb to cut taxes when you have a runaway deficit, unless you cut spending WAY more than taxes. The wingers only are willing to cut extremely small programs though. DOGE was a joke. Hands off of ANYTHING that makes up any significant % of the budget. 

Focusing all the cuts on microscopic programs like DEI, planned parenthood, USAID,NPR, and DOE is more pathetic than the diapers covering Trumps fat rear end. 

Edited 3 hours ago by red viking

[mspart]

Lets tax everyone at 95% and that should take care of it.  

mspart

[red viking]

10 minutes ago, mspart said:

Lets tax everyone at 95% and that should take care of it.  

mspart

Total strawman argument. Nobody is proposing that. I think a slight tax increase, especially on the middle class, is very reasonable. 

Unless you want to gut social security and medicare. 

News flash: we have a big deficit problem. 

 

[JimmySpeaks]

4 hours ago, TylerDurden said:

You're citing the JEC Republican report that came out 15 years ago and was essentially trying to draw connections between the auto bailout (which Bush started) to Obama and continue this idea that it was reckless Democratic spending. 

https://goliards.us/adelphi/deficits/

You can't let AI do the work for you without reading the information. 

75% of largest increases in our country's history have been under either Republican majorities in the Senate and/or in the White House. The other one is a clean up of the housing market crash. 

 

So can you use the housing crash as an excuse but not covid for trump? Got it. 

the hypocrisy is mind numbing 

Edited 1 hour ago by JimmySpeaks

[mspart]

56 minutes ago, red viking said:

Total strawman argument. Nobody is proposing that. I think a slight tax increase, especially on the middle class, is very reasonable. 

Unless you want to gut social security and medicare. 

News flash: we have a big deficit problem. 

 

You are for a slight tax increase every year.   It is your go to.  You never talk about spending cuts, only more taxes.   Yes we have a deficit problem because we spend more than we have.   The immediate fix for that is to spend less.   Period.   Yes we have a BIG  debt problem.   The immediate fix for that is to spend less than we bring in and pay it down.  

Increasing taxes can help but eventually it hurts too many people.   Because they will find that taxing the rich isn't enough and it always comes to taxing the rest of us.  They tax us, we have to cinch up our belts and make our budgets work with less money.   Why is ti that the government is not required to do so?   Riddle me that Batman! 

The way out of this is to cut spending at all levels of the government.   Period.   That is the only way to get a handle on the finances without harming the citizens.   

mspart

[red viking]

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

You are for a slight tax increase every year.   It is your go to.  You never talk about spending cuts, only more taxes.   Yes we have a deficit problem because we spend more than we have.   The immediate fix for that is to spend less.   Period.   Yes we have a BIG  debt problem.   The immediate fix for that is to spend less than we bring in and pay it down.  

Increasing taxes can help but eventually it hurts too many people.   Because they will find that taxing the rich isn't enough and it always comes to taxing the rest of us.  They tax us, we have to cinch up our belts and make our budgets work with less money.   Why is ti that the government is not required to do so?   Riddle me that Batman! 

The way out of this is to cut spending at all levels of the government.   Period.   That is the only way to get a handle on the finances without harming the citizens.   

mspart

That's a 100% lie. I'm OK with REAL spending cuts. Not this B.S. of cutting DEI and Dept of Education and NPR. 

Let's make some major cuts to big programs, like military. I'd completely gut our military. I've said that countless times. I'd also eliminate ALL foreign aid, especially to genocidal leaches like Israel. I'd also be fine with cutting funding to Ukraine too though. 

I've also implied or stated that I'd be OK with modest cuts to social security. People w/ several million dollars don't need it. 

I've stated all of these, in most cases several times. 

The wingers hypocrisy and lies are a dime a dozen. 

[mspart]

To be fair, you have been in favor of cutting military spending since forever.   But to be fair the other direction, you have also been in favor of raising taxes to cut the deficit as your go to since forever. 

How about cuts to:

Treasury

Agriculture

EPA

Military

Interior

Commerce

Education

State

Justice

Labor

HHS

HUD

Transportation

Energy

Veteran's Affairs

Homeland Security.  

Each cabinet post could lose 10% and not be in any worse shape.   Most could lose 20% and cover most of their costs.  Are you willing to do this?   If not, you are not serious about getting this under control.   There may be a need for tax increases but you always cut spending first. 

mspart