McConnell is refusing to pay back debt that GOP raked during Trump presidency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, 40% of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's budget comes from the Federal government.

That right there is reason to let the US default. Cut off the gravy train for those leeches.

Yet the GOP moans and groans about “socialism” and “entitlements”. The hypocrisy and obstructionism is revolting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question- why do we even have a debt ceiling? It's been raised multiple times now. Clearly nobody takes it seriously as far as spending is concerned, so maybe they should just get rid of it altogether?

There’s no debt ceiling in the Constitution, it’s statutory. Congress established the debt ceiling after WWI to encourage fiscal discipline. It didn’t work.

It wasn't done for fiscal discipline reasons. It was done to make it easier to pay.

How does establishing a debt ceiling make it easier to pay? It makes it harder to pay.

Back in the day there needed to be a vote to authorize each tranche of treasuries. The debt ceiling allowed Treasury to sell them on their own.

Wrong. The debt ceiling was meant to enforce fiscal discipline.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debt-ceiling.asp

Investopedia is good for a lot of things. Century old historical intent is not one. It's wrong.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/181258

History News Network is not good for many things at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling

"Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes."

“Before the debt ceiling was created, Congress had free reign over the country’s finances. In 1917, the debt ceiling was created during World War I to hold the federal government fiscally responsible.”

That's your investopwsia statement. It's also an unsupported conjecture. My quote was from YOUR wikipedia entry and is a simple statement of fact.

Prior to the debt ceiling Congress authorized each specific tranche of debt. After the debt ceiling Treasury was allowed to issue debt as needed up to a certain dollar amount. If you look further, the initial debt issued under the new authority was only 1/3 of the authorized amount. The logic is inescapble. The debt ceiling was originally created to make the issuanxe of debt less cumbersome and easier. This makes complete sense since it was done in 1917, during a World War!, a time at which it would be insanely stupid to artificially limit spending.

You’re cherry picking. This is what Wikipedia says:

“Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt instruments for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave Treasury discretion over which type of debt would be issued. The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Secondary Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.”

That's exactly what I said. It was a means of giving Treasury discretion and not having to vote every single time.

You’re completely missing the point. The debt ceiling was meant to reign in Congress, not Treasury.

Lordy. I understand that you want history to suppport your current partisan position but it just doesn't do that. It is nothing but a procedural quirk. Writing the check to pay the credit card charges we have already incurred.

Partisan? What does partisanship have to do with it? I’m merely pointing out the truth. There’s nothing partisan about it. We all know that raising the debt ceiling is to pay for debts Congress has already incurred. The debt ceiling was meant to stop Congress from incurring more debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question- why do we even have a debt ceiling? It's been raised multiple times now. Clearly nobody takes it seriously as far as spending is concerned, so maybe they should just get rid of it altogether?

There’s no debt ceiling in the Constitution, it’s statutory. Congress established the debt ceiling after WWI to encourage fiscal discipline. It didn’t work.

It wasn't done for fiscal discipline reasons. It was done to make it easier to pay.

How does establishing a debt ceiling make it easier to pay? It makes it harder to pay.

Back in the day there needed to be a vote to authorize each tranche of treasuries. The debt ceiling allowed Treasury to sell them on their own.

Wrong. The debt ceiling was meant to enforce fiscal discipline.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debt-ceiling.asp

Investopedia is good for a lot of things. Century old historical intent is not one. It's wrong.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/181258

History News Network is not good for many things at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling

"Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes."

“Before the debt ceiling was created, Congress had free reign over the country’s finances. In 1917, the debt ceiling was created during World War I to hold the federal government fiscally responsible.”

That's your investopwsia statement. It's also an unsupported conjecture. My quote was from YOUR wikipedia entry and is a simple statement of fact.

Prior to the debt ceiling Congress authorized each specific tranche of debt. After the debt ceiling Treasury was allowed to issue debt as needed up to a certain dollar amount. If you look further, the initial debt issued under the new authority was only 1/3 of the authorized amount. The logic is inescapble. The debt ceiling was originally created to make the issuanxe of debt less cumbersome and easier. This makes complete sense since it was done in 1917, during a World War!, a time at which it would be insanely stupid to artificially limit spending.

You’re cherry picking. This is what Wikipedia says:

“Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt instruments for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave Treasury discretion over which type of debt would be issued. The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Secondary Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.”

That's exactly what I said. It was a means of giving Treasury discretion and not having to vote every single time.

You’re completely missing the point. The debt ceiling was meant to reign in Congress, not Treasury.

Lordy. I understand that you want history to suppport your current partisan position but it just doesn't do that. It is nothing but a procedural quirk. Writing the check to pay the credit card charges we have already incurred.

Partisan? What does partisanship have to do with it? I’m merely pointing out the truth. There’s nothing partisan about it. We all know that raising the debt ceiling is to pay for debts Congress has already incurred. The debt ceiling was meant to stop Congress from incurring more debt.

So let's raise the debt ceiling to cover just our past bills and be done with it.

This is a game of brinkmanship, and if you don't think Pelosi and Schumer wouldn't do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed, you're lying to yourself. Btw, the tax cuts aren't comparable. They did, in fact, pay for themselves. The $3.5T is partisan spending. If Democrats think the tax cuts were so bad, they're free to cut a check to the Treasury for what they would have paid. For many UMC W-2 earners, it actually was a tax increase (no SALT deduction).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question- why do we even have a debt ceiling? It's been raised multiple times now. Clearly nobody takes it seriously as far as spending is concerned, so maybe they should just get rid of it altogether?

There’s no debt ceiling in the Constitution, it’s statutory. Congress established the debt ceiling after WWI to encourage fiscal discipline. It didn’t work.

It wasn't done for fiscal discipline reasons. It was done to make it easier to pay.

How does establishing a debt ceiling make it easier to pay? It makes it harder to pay.

Back in the day there needed to be a vote to authorize each tranche of treasuries. The debt ceiling allowed Treasury to sell them on their own.

Wrong. The debt ceiling was meant to enforce fiscal discipline.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debt-ceiling.asp

Investopedia is good for a lot of things. Century old historical intent is not one. It's wrong.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/181258

History News Network is not good for many things at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling

"Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes."

“Before the debt ceiling was created, Congress had free reign over the country’s finances. In 1917, the debt ceiling was created during World War I to hold the federal government fiscally responsible.”

That's your investopwsia statement. It's also an unsupported conjecture. My quote was from YOUR wikipedia entry and is a simple statement of fact.

Prior to the debt ceiling Congress authorized each specific tranche of debt. After the debt ceiling Treasury was allowed to issue debt as needed up to a certain dollar amount. If you look further, the initial debt issued under the new authority was only 1/3 of the authorized amount. The logic is inescapble. The debt ceiling was originally created to make the issuanxe of debt less cumbersome and easier. This makes complete sense since it was done in 1917, during a World War!, a time at which it would be insanely stupid to artificially limit spending.

You’re cherry picking. This is what Wikipedia says:

“Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt instruments for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave Treasury discretion over which type of debt would be issued. The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Secondary Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.”

That's exactly what I said. It was a means of giving Treasury discretion and not having to vote every single time.

You’re completely missing the point. The debt ceiling was meant to reign in Congress, not Treasury.

Lordy. I understand that you want history to suppport your current partisan position but it just doesn't do that. It is nothing but a procedural quirk. Writing the check to pay the credit card charges we have already incurred.

Partisan? What does partisanship have to do with it? I’m merely pointing out the truth. There’s nothing partisan about it. We all know that raising the debt ceiling is to pay for debts Congress has already incurred. The debt ceiling was meant to stop Congress from incurring more debt.

So let's raise the debt ceiling to cover just our past bills and be done with it.

This is a game of brinkmanship, and if you don't think Pelosi and Schumer wouldn't do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed, you're lying to yourself. Btw, the tax cuts aren't comparable. They did, in fact, pay for themselves. The $3.5T is partisan spending. If Democrats think the tax cuts were so bad, they're free to cut a check to the Treasury for what they would have paid. For many UMC W-2 earners, it actually was a tax increase (no SALT deduction).

What on Earth are you babbling about? I was arguing an historical fact. I wasn’t saying anything about whose fault the present crisis is. Whose fault the present crisis is has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So let's raise the debt ceiling to cover just our past bills and be done with it.

This is a game of brinkmanship, and if you don't think Pelosi and Schumer wouldn't do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed, you're lying to yourself. Btw, the tax cuts aren't comparable. They did, in fact, pay for themselves. The $3.5T is partisan spending. If Democrats think the tax cuts were so bad, they're free to cut a check to the Treasury for what they would have paid. For many UMC W-2 earners, it actually was a tax increase (no SALT deduction).

Then why did the Trump Administrtion accumulate $9 TRILLION dollars of new debt over his four years?

Please provide a link showing the bolded is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question- why do we even have a debt ceiling? It's been raised multiple times now. Clearly nobody takes it seriously as far as spending is concerned, so maybe they should just get rid of it altogether?

There’s no debt ceiling in the Constitution, it’s statutory. Congress established the debt ceiling after WWI to encourage fiscal discipline. It didn’t work.

It wasn't done for fiscal discipline reasons. It was done to make it easier to pay.

How does establishing a debt ceiling make it easier to pay? It makes it harder to pay.

Back in the day there needed to be a vote to authorize each tranche of treasuries. The debt ceiling allowed Treasury to sell them on their own.

Wrong. The debt ceiling was meant to enforce fiscal discipline.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debt-ceiling.asp

Investopedia is good for a lot of things. Century old historical intent is not one. It's wrong.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/181258

History News Network is not good for many things at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling

"Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes."

“Before the debt ceiling was created, Congress had free reign over the country’s finances. In 1917, the debt ceiling was created during World War I to hold the federal government fiscally responsible.”

That's your investopwsia statement. It's also an unsupported conjecture. My quote was from YOUR wikipedia entry and is a simple statement of fact.

Prior to the debt ceiling Congress authorized each specific tranche of debt. After the debt ceiling Treasury was allowed to issue debt as needed up to a certain dollar amount. If you look further, the initial debt issued under the new authority was only 1/3 of the authorized amount. The logic is inescapble. The debt ceiling was originally created to make the issuanxe of debt less cumbersome and easier. This makes complete sense since it was done in 1917, during a World War!, a time at which it would be insanely stupid to artificially limit spending.

You’re cherry picking. This is what Wikipedia says:

“Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt instruments for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave Treasury discretion over which type of debt would be issued. The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Secondary Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.”

That's exactly what I said. It was a means of giving Treasury discretion and not having to vote every single time.

You’re completely missing the point. The debt ceiling was meant to reign in Congress, not Treasury.

Lordy. I understand that you want history to suppport your current partisan position but it just doesn't do that. It is nothing but a procedural quirk. Writing the check to pay the credit card charges we have already incurred.

Partisan? What does partisanship have to do with it? I’m merely pointing out the truth. There’s nothing partisan about it. We all know that raising the debt ceiling is to pay for debts Congress has already incurred. The debt ceiling was meant to stop Congress from incurring more debt.

So let's raise the debt ceiling to cover just our past bills and be done with it.

This is a game of brinkmanship, and if you don't think Pelosi and Schumer wouldn't do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed, you're lying to yourself. Btw, the tax cuts aren't comparable. They did, in fact, pay for themselves. The $3.5T is partisan spending. If Democrats think the tax cuts were so bad, they're free to cut a check to the Treasury for what they would have paid. For many UMC W-2 earners, it actually was a tax increase (no SALT deduction).

What on Earth are you babbling about? I was arguing an historical fact. I wasn’t saying anything about whose fault the present crisis is. Whose fault the present crisis is has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

And you didn't respond to any of mine. McConnell is doing what's necessary to rein in irresponsible spending so that the debt ceiling won't need to be raised by an amount we can't possibly pay back. Cut the spending and you could see some GOP votes. Continue to ram through spending and other legislation on a party line vote, you'll get more of the same.

You can complain all you want, but even Democrats are wondering why Biden, Pelosi and Schumer can't get things done. Blame your own party, not the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What on Earth are you babbling about? I was arguing an historical fact. I wasn’t saying anything about whose fault the present crisis is. Whose fault the present crisis is has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

And you didn't respond to any of mine. McConnell is doing what's necessary to rein in irresponsible spending so that the debt ceiling won't need to be raised by an amount we can't possibly pay back. Cut the spending and you could see some GOP votes. Continue to ram through spending and other legislation on a party line vote, you'll get more of the same.

You can complain all you want, but even Democrats are wondering why Biden, Pelosi and Schumer can't get things done. Blame your own party, not the GOP.


Hey Republicans, when we mock you in good fun for not understanding the issues and spouting Fox talking points, this is what we’re talking about. Lies (or doesn’t know anything), spouts the fox points and doesn’t post sources for their outlandish claims and gets their feathers all ruffled that not everyone is as befuddled as they are.

[Anonymous]

I’m a Dem and believe this lays at the feet of Democrats. At anytime they could abolish the filibuster and do this themselves. And while they’re at it, get rid of this stupid debt ceiling limit.

But they continue to point to GOP. I’m not sure if Dem leadership is naive or is trying to score points. For the former, when was the last time GOP governed responsibly? If the latter, they’re fools because it will persuade NO ONE.

This is so maddening.

[Anonymous]

Since lowering taxes always pay for themselves, we should lower taxes to zero and get infinite revenue!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Dem and believe this lays at the feet of Democrats. At anytime they could abolish the filibuster and do this themselves. And while they’re at it, get rid of this stupid debt ceiling limit.

But they continue to point to GOP. I’m not sure if Dem leadership is naive or is trying to score points. For the former, when was the last time GOP governed responsibly? If the latter, they’re fools because it will persuade NO ONE.

This is so maddening.

This is false because Joe Manchin will not vote to abolish it. It's not "Democrats" it's a single Democrat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What on Earth are you babbling about? I was arguing an historical fact. I wasn’t saying anything about whose fault the present crisis is. Whose fault the present crisis is has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

And you didn't respond to any of mine. McConnell is doing what's necessary to rein in irresponsible spending so that the debt ceiling won't need to be raised by an amount we can't possibly pay back. Cut the spending and you could see some GOP votes. Continue to ram through spending and other legislation on a party line vote, you'll get more of the same.

You can complain all you want, but even Democrats are wondering why Biden, Pelosi and Schumer can't get things done. Blame your own party, not the GOP.

Hey Republicans, when we mock you in good fun for not understanding the issues and spouting Fox talking points, this is what we’re talking about. Lies (or doesn’t know anything), spouts the fox points and doesn’t post sources for their outlandish claims and gets their feathers all ruffled that not everyone is as befuddled as they are.

First PP, the debt ceiling is for past debts. So this is for debts incurred under Trumps for his unpaid for tax cuts.

It has nothing to do with née spending. It wouldn’t matter if Biden’s new proposal was $10, we’d still need to deal with it. And not doing so will set off global recession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Dem and believe this lays at the feet of Democrats. At anytime they could abolish the filibuster and do this themselves. And while they’re at it, get rid of this stupid debt ceiling limit.

But they continue to point to GOP. I’m not sure if Dem leadership is naive or is trying to score points. For the former, when was the last time GOP governed responsibly? If the latter, they’re fools because it will persuade NO ONE.

This is so maddening.

This is false because Joe Manchin will not vote to abolish it. It's not "Democrats" it's a single Democrat.

Pp here. I know this and it’s Sinema too. But Dem leadership knew this was coming and should have known GOP would behave this way and they needed to have planned for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Dem and believe this lays at the feet of Democrats. At anytime they could abolish the filibuster and do this themselves. And while they’re at it, get rid of this stupid debt ceiling limit.

But they continue to point to GOP. I’m not sure if Dem leadership is naive or is trying to score points. For the former, when was the last time GOP governed responsibly? If the latter, they’re fools because it will persuade NO ONE.

This is so maddening.

This is false because Joe Manchin will not vote to abolish it. It's not "Democrats" it's a single Democrat.

And Sinema; she would not vote to remove filibuster either.

Yes it is in Democrats court and the situation is maddening, but we should cut our nose to spite our face. Without them we would not have Democratic senate. With those 2 senators bought out create problem for Democratic agenda what democrats can do is to call them to influence. In 2022 re-energize to vote some more senators so that we are not dependent on just two senators. May be then push for DC and PR statehood and abolish filibuster!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Dem and believe this lays at the feet of Democrats. At anytime they could abolish the filibuster and do this themselves. And while they’re at it, get rid of this stupid debt ceiling limit.

But they continue to point to GOP. I’m not sure if Dem leadership is naive or is trying to score points. For the former, when was the last time GOP governed responsibly? If the latter, they’re fools because it will persuade NO ONE.

This is so maddening.

This is false because Joe Manchin will not vote to abolish it. It's not "Democrats" it's a single Democrat.

Pp here. I know this and it’s Sinema too. But Dem leadership knew this was coming and should have known GOP would behave this way and they needed to have planned for that.

Democrats probably thought that GOP would act with good faith and would not hamstring the country. They probably though senator like Romney, Murkowski and Collins etc would behave slightly normal. They are the one who voted for the 9T tax cut and would be adult enough to be willing to pay for the debt they have agreed to incur. Unfortunately they do not. The whole GOP is a criminal enterprise.

Now Democrats have two path

1. Waste one reconciliation opportunity for raising debt ceiling (possible that they may not have time for this and apparently it is riddled with problems and uncertainties)

2. Abolish filibuster for raising debt ceiling; this one what they are probably considering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What on Earth are you babbling about? I was arguing an historical fact. I wasn’t saying anything about whose fault the present crisis is. Whose fault the present crisis is has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.

And you didn't respond to any of mine. McConnell is doing what's necessary to rein in irresponsible spending so that the debt ceiling won't need to be raised by an amount we can't possibly pay back. Cut the spending and you could see some GOP votes. Continue to ram through spending and other legislation on a party line vote, you'll get more of the same.

You can complain all you want, but even Democrats are wondering why Biden, Pelosi and Schumer can't get things done. Blame your own party, not the GOP.

Hey Republicans, when we mock you in good fun for not understanding the issues and spouting Fox talking points, this is what we’re talking about. Lies (or doesn’t know anything), spouts the fox points and doesn’t post sources for their outlandish claims and gets their feathers all ruffled that not everyone is as befuddled as they are.

First PP, the debt ceiling is for past debts. So this is for debts incurred under Trumps for his unpaid for tax cuts.

It has nothing to do with née spending. It wouldn’t matter if Biden’s new proposal was $10, we’d still need to deal with it. And not doing so will set off global recession.

At this point I have no idea whom I am arguing against.