Republicans and the debt ceiling
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The United States has incurred obligations. These are not just bonds and treasury bills. Social Security and Medicare appropriations and approved benefit levels are also obligations. The money is spent. The bills have been incurred. The obligations must be repaid. If Congress wants to cut spending, it needs to pass laws that result in the United States spending less. It can't just approve spending and then refuse to pay for it. |
Anonymous
|
Per Moody's -- the Republican debt ceiling bill, if passed into law, would lead to 780,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2024 and would meaningfully increase the risk of recession.
Source: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2023/debt-limit-drama.pdf The gap between yields in one month treasuries and three month treasuries has never been this high. So, there's anxiety that the Republican pyromaniacs in the House might actually burn us down this time. |
Anonymous
Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single‐minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years. |
Anonymous
Ah yes, and then immediately pissed all the savings away the moment GW Bush Administration needed some tax cuts. Remember what Vice President Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter." Or rather, they don't matter unless there's a Democrat in the White House. |
Anonymous
The White House points out Republican support for cutting veterans benefits.
|
Anonymous
If there's any Republican to give some credit to it's George HW Bush whose reneging on the "read my lips" promise was the single greatest act of political courage since the civil rights act. He raised taxes because we needed to for the budget. It might have cost him re-election but he did what was right. |
Anonymous
To be honest neither party give a crap about the budget but to only give credit to Clinton is false. Then of course there is this as well. "Clinton’s lock-box plan is nothing more than a scheme to use more than $3 trillion in Social Security surpluses to buy down federal debt. In exchange, the Social Security trust fund gets another $3 trillion worth of IOUs." There has not been an attempt to balance the budget by Democrats in 40 years. In fact, according to the historical data published by the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House, no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since fiscal 1969--more than 40 years ago Mean while true Republicans: A balanced budget amendment requires the government to spend no more than it takes in each year — and Republicans have pushed to consider the measure since the 1980s. The last time the House of Representatives voted on a constitutional balanced budget amendment was in 2011 -- before that, 1995. Congress has never been able to fully pass the amendment, failing to garner support from both the House and the Senate each time it’s been taken to the floor The reality is you have both parties blaming each other and getting nothing done while the rest of the country goes down the crapper. If they can't pass a budget that spends less than they take in all of them should be removed from office as this is one of the more important task for Congress as a whole. When Medicare crashes, SS can't by a loaf of bread, and the US dollar is worthless as more countries move away from it and to top that off we make hardly anything in the US anymore. What do you expect will happen? |
Anonymous
More of these. Literally some people need pictures to understand this. It’s not that complicated. |
Anonymous
It's a great response to all the idiot republicans claiming they didn't vote to cut veterans' benefits (and dozens of other popular programs) when they clearly did. |
Anonymous
The only thing that apparently matters is to make a democrat in the White House look bad, not actually help the United States. Newt pretended to care as long as a democrat was the President, and then afterwards it was have a giant tax cut and military spending party. It's crazy. And the republicans now don't even pretend to care about veterans--look at their last vote. I assume everyone will be in for a world of hurt in early June. We are already saving money. |
Anonymous
|
The 90s had a booming economy and a peace dividend after the breakup of the Soviet Union that permitted some drawdown of military spending, and the Boomers were making money and paying taxes and not yet on disability and retirement. The budget balanced because federal and tax revenues went way up.
In 1996 when Bob Dole ran for President, Trent Lott as Senate Majority Leader was eager to cut deals with Clinton and dragged Newt along. Only about half of House Republicans were bat-shit crazy then, the rest were still dealmakers. Trent Lott talked like an ideologue but he was a pork and patronage partisan who now looks like a statesman compared to the obstructionists Republican leaders since 2010. |
Anonymous
I was a much younger man then. I had been a Republican but Gingrich and the House Republicans' impeachment antics really pissed me off. I was not yet comfortable calling myself a Democrat and thought of myself as a libertarian. Prior to the 2000 election, I was part of a pretty active email discussion group where I was particularly aggravated by the idea of cutting taxes rather than using the surplus to pay off debt. My Republican friends started parroting the idea that we needed to to cut taxes because we might *pay the debt off too quickly!* Damned if Dubya & Co. didn't get that tax cut passed and send that debt roaring again. I don't think I've taken a "fiscal conservative" seriously since then. |
Anonymous
It has to approve any borrowing. It's not OK to just approve spending and then not have enough revenue to pay for it. |
Anonymous
They never stuck to those budget numbers. They did have one year of reducing discretionary spending. The seven year balanced budget they approved, was abandoned immediately. It is a major source of ObamaCare being presented as reducing the deficit. The reality was the spending numbers came in much higher and the budget was balanced because of large increase in revenues, the tech economy and booming stock market, helped along by a capital gains tax cut. There is passed into law cuts in Medicare spending for hospitals, that every year Congress passes an override. This 'spending cut' gets larger every year. When ObamaCare passed it, they scored it with the spending cut, and this less than without ObamaCare and without the spending cut. |
Anonymous
| Let's go back to the 2019 pre-covid spending levels. |