Republicans and the debt ceiling

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps saying this, including McConnell and McCarthy, but the reality is default is not on the table. All debts can be paid without raising the debt ceiling.
This is all about the government needing authorization to borrow MORE money.
If the budget was balanced, there would be no need for a debt ceiling increase, other than higher interest rates cause the budget to go out of balance with higher debt payments.

Default is on the table. The Government needs authorization borrow MORE money because it does not bring in enough in tax revenue to pay for both the debt and other payments it is required to make by law. Yes, in a hypothetical world where there was no law requiring the Government to pay Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, military salaries and benefits, etc., then there would be no need for an increase. But we do not live in that world and every single republican has sworn up and down that they won't cut any of those things.

[Anonymous]

Most agencies would probably be helped by a 20% headcount reduction, but of course they’d let go of the wrong 20%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most agencies would probably be helped by a 20% headcount reduction, but of course they’d let go of the wrong 20%.

Conversely we could just end Trump’s irresponsible tax cut, but that makes too much sense for Republicans to embrace it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most agencies would probably be helped by a 20% headcount reduction, but of course they’d let go of the wrong 20%.

Even if you laid off every civilian employee, it still would not make up enough to fulfill the cuts republicans are proposing. Civilian compensation is a pretty small part of overall federal spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most agencies would probably be helped by a 20% headcount reduction, but of course they’d let go of the wrong 20%.

Every time you cut federal personnel the government replaces them with contractors (or rehires them as contractors) at equal or greater expense and with much less oversight. The only departments with surplus people are DOD and DHS because they get whatever they ask for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps saying this, including McConnell and McCarthy, but the reality is default is not on the table. All debts can be paid without raising the debt ceiling.
This is all about the government needing authorization to borrow MORE money.
If the budget was balanced, there would be no need for a debt ceiling increase, other than higher interest rates cause the budget to go out of balance with higher debt payments.

Default is on the table. The Government needs authorization borrow MORE money because it does not bring in enough in tax revenue to pay for both the debt and other payments it is required to make by law. Yes, in a hypothetical world where there was no law requiring the Government to pay Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, military salaries and benefits, etc., then there would be no need for an increase. But we do not live in that world and every single republican has sworn up and down that they won't cut any of those things.

Then you make the debt payments and stop other things. That becomes the crisis, not default. Why don't they just say Republicans are threatening to keep seniors from getting their social security checks(something I remember Obama or Clinton did when GOP didn't pass a budget)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone keeps saying this, including McConnell and McCarthy, but the reality is default is not on the table. All debts can be paid without raising the debt ceiling.
This is all about the government needing authorization to borrow MORE money.
If the budget was balanced, there would be no need for a debt ceiling increase, other than higher interest rates cause the budget to go out of balance with higher debt payments.

Default is on the table. The Government needs authorization borrow MORE money because it does not bring in enough in tax revenue to pay for both the debt and other payments it is required to make by law. Yes, in a hypothetical world where there was no law requiring the Government to pay Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, military salaries and benefits, etc., then there would be no need for an increase. But we do not live in that world and every single republican has sworn up and down that they won't cut any of those things.

Then you make the debt payments and stop other things. That becomes the crisis, not default. Why don't they just say Republicans are threatening to keep seniors from getting their social security checks(something I remember Obama or Clinton did when GOP didn't pass a budget)?

Probably because 1) that’s illegal and 2) republicans who accuse Biden of prioritizing rich bond holders (including china) over seniors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most agencies would probably be helped by a 20% headcount reduction, but of course they’d let go of the wrong 20%.

Every time you cut federal personnel the government replaces them with contractors (or rehires them as contractors) at equal or greater expense and with much less oversight. The only departments with surplus people are DOD and DHS because they get whatever they ask for.

Cut federal positions so all the boomers who just retired from government can be hired as double-dipping remote contractors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most agencies would probably be helped by a 20% headcount reduction, but of course they’d let go of the wrong 20%.

Every time you cut federal personnel the government replaces them with contractors (or rehires them as contractors) at equal or greater expense and with much less oversight. The only departments with surplus people are DOD and DHS because they get whatever they ask for.

You'd be shocked to know how many big national programs are already only have one or two feds to run them.

[Anonymous]

20 percent cut across the board. All checks and payments cut 20 percent.

It’s the only way to do it without wasting time with incessant whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence that the GOP is operating in bad faith and doesn't give a fig about deficits:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/15/debt-ceiling-negotiations-deadline-default/

So? Everyone knows this. The thing is everyone also knows the democrats will negotiate and give away the store. Why is Biden negotiating with these clowns? Biden should demand the same deal Trump got plus immigration reform and gun control.

I wonder what Biden is offering Republicans in exchange for raising the debt ceiling? I guess we’ll find out soon.

What are republicans offering Biden in exchange for the spending cuts they want?

Raising the debt ceiling and avoiding catastrophe.

But that's something both sides want. That's not a concession. Unless the Republicans want to create a catastrophe. What are the Republicans giving up?

FWIW I think there are several Freedom Caucus types who want to default and plan to reject any offer from Biden. They figure either nothing will happen so it’s NBD, or the economy will collapse, Biden will get the blame, and Trump will be swept into office in a landslide in 2024. Either way, there’s no downside for them. In the end, I think it will come down to Kevin McCarthy and the titans of finance who will be breathing down his neck at the 11th hour.

That's probably true. But the official position from both McConnell and McCarthy is that they want to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default. So saying that they'll raise the debt ceiling is not a concession. An actual negotiation involves both sides giving things up.

I definitely agree. We’ll see if Biden gets anything in return besides raising the debt ceiling. If he doesn’t, he will go into 2024 with a deflated, demoralized base.

So of the Republicans want to blow it up, it's Biden's fault?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most agencies would probably be helped by a 20% headcount reduction, but of course they’d let go of the wrong 20%.

Every time you cut federal personnel the government replaces them with contractors (or rehires them as contractors) at equal or greater expense and with much less oversight. The only departments with surplus people are DOD and DHS because they get whatever they ask for.

You'd be shocked to know how many big national programs are already only have one or two feds to run them.

And sometimes they carry out the mission and sometimes it's just a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most agencies would probably be helped by a 20% headcount reduction, but of course they’d let go of the wrong 20%.

Even if you laid off every civilian employee, it still would not make up enough to fulfill the cuts republicans are proposing. Civilian compensation is a pretty small part of overall federal spending.

Exactly right - and, many of the civilian agencies are already understaffed, and there's not much that can be cut. They are there to implement laws, regulations, et cetera - and the minute that stops, you can be sure there will be people out there taking the government to court for not doing its job - lawsuits that the government will lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
20 percent cut across the board. All checks and payments cut 20 percent.

It’s the only way to do it without wasting time with incessant whining.

Grow up.