Hacker News Reader

Comment by neodymiumphish | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious who is engaging in the gamesmanship in this scenario. This has been an issue long in the making with our deficit ballooning, even after significant increases in federal revenue. The bill signed by Republicans is hardly extreme, and when we considering the amount of expenses being paid to interest alone, it's clear the federal government needs to do something at this point.

Legislators across both aisles have demonstrated they have no interest in decreasing spending. This bill forces their hand while there's still leverage.

View on HN

We have a budget process. If they fail to pass a budget, we get a government shutdown. Shutdowns are already extreme, but at least they are well understood and incremental. A 1 day shutdown is not too bad. A 1 year shutdown is untenable. Why do they need more leverage?

I answered that in my second paragraph. They've proven they're incapable of developing a budget that doesn't balloon. Non-discretionary spending is through the roof, as evidenced by their demand of latching spending to the 2022 budget levels. That's last year. How is this extreme or outside the realm of even negotiation?

Recall that the largest contribution to the budget shortfall is not increased spending, but tax cuts. If this were not simple gamesmanship, the proposed solution would include tax increases to pay for that which we have already agreed to purchase.

That's absolutely false. Federal revenue increased by nearly 20%.

The term ballooning is so qualitative and subjective that it is essentially a Barnum statement. How would you determine if the number for the debt is too high? And why?

And how would you determine if it is too low?

For example would the calculation consider the current population? the current factory capacity? Agricultural capacity? the year? Interest Rates? Tax Revenue? The populations desired rate of saving? The current desires and goals of the nation and its citizens? If there is no exact formula, then would a representative body that debates and agrees on a best estimate number be a reasonable way to decide that? If so isn't that what congress does already?

Cutting 1/3 of discretionary non-military spending is extreme.

(edited for typo)

They want the levels set to the 2022 levels. The idea that they increased by 1/3 in one budgetary cycle is bonkers.

Huh? 2020 budget was $6.5T. 2021 was $7.3T. 2022 was $6T. 2023 is $6T. Considering inflation, spending is down ~10%.

And any increases were across the board. Asking them to cut all of the increases from only ~10% of the expenditures is ludicrous.

Also debt ceiling is not the budget. Lots of incorrect info in this thread.

And it's discretionary spending they're trying to cut, not non-discretionary.

Without including meaningful tax increases, I don't think that the Republican bill can really be said to be a serious proposal. "We get everything we want and you get nothing" isn't a good faith negotiating position.

Spending is the side of the equation that's most problematic, though. Renevue has increased substantially lately, but the federal government has continued blowing past it at pretty insane rates. Both parties are obviously at fault, but this is the first major effort intended to curb it that we've seen in a long while.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com