I like the new spirit of bipartisanship, where each side would rather blow up the economy than negotiate or compromise.
They've even spent months talking about how bad it will be, but it it will actually be that bad, why won't they budge?
They've even spent months talking about how bad it will be, but it it will actually be that bad, why won't they budge?
And defaulting is somehow better than that?
That's just a rationalization for being unwilling to cooperate and compromise.
They're both in a car heading towards a cliff. One party has its foot on the gas, the other has its hands on the wheel, and neither will move. Complaining about how unreasonable the other side is doesn't change that fact doesn't make your side reasonable except to your partisans.
If the Republicans were responsible, they wouldn't be refusing to pass a debt limit increase. If the Democrats were responsible, they'd compromise now and wait for the next opportunity to repeal the debt limit (not fantasizing about untried gimmicks like platinum coins and a constitutional challenge). Neither party is being responsible.
No. The Republicans in the House did pass a debt limit increase, but the Democrats are threatening to drive off the cliff unless the increase is done their way.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/26/1172368638/house-of-represent...:
> The House of Representatives narrowly approved a Republican bill that links avoiding a default with enacting spending cuts and several GOP policies rolling back several of President Biden's policies.
[EDIT] Less flippantly, re-read what you wrote: it's not a refutation of my claim, but instead re-affirms it.
> [EDIT] Less flippantly, re-read what you wrote: it's not a refutation of my claim, but instead re-affirms it.
No. Are the Democrats going to pass the Republican bill to avoid a default? Refusing to pass anything and pursuing untried gimmicks is driving off the cliff and just hoping for a soft landing. Both parties are making demands.
"I agree not to drive off the cliff if you agree to these other things."
Yes, technically those are both demands.
[EDIT] I think the core thing I'm not getting here is why you think the Republicans aren't the ones demanding something in exchange for a debt ceiling increase because they put those demands in bill form and passed them. I do not follow how that somehow makes it not the thing that it literally is.
> "I agree not to drive off the cliff if you agree to these other things."
Both parties have the ability to instantly end this debt ceiling drama right now. They are both choosing not to do so.
> [EDIT] I think the core thing I'm not getting here is why you think the Republicans aren't the ones demanding something in exchange for a debt ceiling increase because they put those demands in bill form and passed them. I do not follow how that somehow makes it not the thing that it literally is.
Because that's artificial. Legislative action needs to happen, different parties have different bills to achieve that action, and they have to come to an agreement but they've decided to play chicken instead. All the crap about how they're making demands and we're not is just political posturing.
Essentially, the government would stop paying for things. Which things is a level of chaos I wouldn't want to see. AIUI, e.g., that could mean things like social security payouts not getting paid out. That'd obviously be bad, as many aging Americans depend on those payments, and such an action would be to throw them under the bus. Another alternative is to default on debt, such as bonds, or perhaps say "we'll pay … uh … later?", and those consequences are mentioned in the article: the US's credit rating could be harmed (we've demonstrated that we're not as reliable a debtor as previously thought; this would translate to higher rates in the future, meaning borrowing costs the taxpayer more). Those people that hold US obligations would be harmed: the value of those would drop, representing the now-realized higher likelihood of a US default. (This would harm, e.g., investment accounts, I would imagine more so for older Americans, as younger Americans are more likely to have more money invested in riskier investments, like stocks. Although should this happens, I fully expect a (at least short term) Wall Street panic and stocks drop too…)
Holding America hostage with the debt ceiling is childish; the only real answer here is to raise the debt ceiling and then act like adults and get together and agree on a balanced budget with a surplus that can be used to start making headway into the owed debt until the national debt is at a reasonable level. But … I don't see that happening anytime soon; I think the most realistic path to such a budget involves taxing the rich, something to which the Republicans won't agree to, or cuts to the budget, which one party won't agree to (social services? Dems hate it; military? GOP hates it).
How is this different?
That's a selective reading. The parties aren't perfectly symmetrical. The Dems like spending, so they're not going to challenge the debt. They have their own stuff they want to "pull," like trying to abolish the filibuster or pack the Supreme court because it's not currently controlled by liberals.
The Republicans love to spend money just as much or more than the Democrats. They just like to spend it on things which get even more of it into the hands of the wealthy.
Note that they haven't been able to do either. If enough Democrats were on board with those items (the filibuster would have to be abolished before the packing court packing could begin) it would've happened by now. But many Democrats in the Executive and Legislative branches are very hesitant to do those things. GOP congress folks have not been hesitant to play chicken with the debt ceiling.
They were very, very close. IMHO, it's only a matter of time, and when it happens, there will be no delay.
A lot of our current deficit is due to tax cuts in the current century (Bush, Trump) and I suppose you'd agree that Dems dislike tax cuts, so why haven't they tried to push increases/cut-reversals in debt ceiling negotiations?
Both republicans and democrats are heavily invested in the stock market which will crash and burn if US defaults.
It's all a show.
This is a slow burner.
If Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton could swing it during hard times then Gov has no excuse not to be able to do it now.
(the crash wasn't until '01/'02)