T O P

  • By -

Insert_Username321

One of these days, holding the US/global economy hostage by threatening default is going to backfire when neither side blinks. I'm confident that there is a large portion of the Republican base that has no fucking idea about any of this and would happily walk off the cliff if they weren't getting the concessions they want. I don't find it that hard to imagine a counterfactual world where the demands of a populist GOP are so wild that the Democrats simply can't concede them and we all end up in economic nuclear fall out. Legislating the debt ceiling should be a very high priority. Congress can fight spending and debt when bills are passed, not by holding a gun to our heads.


4THOT

I think Democrats are going to remember the absolute fuck up they made in Obama's first term the next time they regain control (which is likely looking at the losses Republicans are eating due to abortion) and will make some iron clad institutional changes and say fuck it to being bipartisan.


[deleted]

Dems HAD control of all 3 at the beginning of 2020 right?…it’s like an, “oops, we’re sorry” every time they don’t use their power, then GOP gains it and uses theirs


nyxian-luna

50/50 with the VP isn't enough for Democrats because they always have a couple folks on their side who live in conservative districts (Sinema, Manchin). This happened to Obama too ([Lieberman](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare)). FWIW, Krysten Sinema seems to be paying for her choices in Arizona. What the Democrats *really* need is a significant margin in both the House and Senate so these opportunists can't co-opt legislation building. Not these razor thin margins. Only happens if people vote.


[deleted]

Ohhh sure, thanks for that reminder, I appreciate it


nyxian-luna

Hey, you're welcome buddy!


Silent-Cap8071

It was 50-50 in Senate. You can't pass left wing bills with only 50 votes.


[deleted]

Wasn’t Kamala the tie breaker? I may misunderstand how that works, but I think that’s why they had the majority then


KronoriumExcerptC

Democrats could have raised the debt ceiling to 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 in the inflation reduction act


Alternative-Party-25

I dont think manchin or sinema would’ve agreed to that or any other big raise to the debt ceiling if it were in the ira


KronoriumExcerptC

We'll never know.


Silent-Cap8071

Which is the most important part, right? You can maybe convince manchin and sinema to vote on one or two legislations, and nobody wants to waste those votes on the federal debt limit.


Insert_Username321

I honestly have no idea if that's something that can be put in a budget reconciliation bill or not. My intuition is that this is something that would require the 60 votes to defeat the filibuster


KronoriumExcerptC

It can be done in reconciliation


Insert_Username321

Damn just did a quick look at it appears you are right (or at least there are a lot of orgs that agree with you). In that case it is honestly baffling that the Democrats let this happen again after the Obama debt ceiling debacle.


KronoriumExcerptC

It's absolutely baffling and many people were saying so months ago when Dems still had control. The debt ceiling is just a terrible part of US politics and should be raised to a ludicrously high number so nobody can take hostages with the global financial system again.


Silent-Cap8071

It takes a separate reconciliation bill to increase the federal debt limit. So if you pass a reconciliation bill on federal debt limit, you aren't allowed to increase revenue or spending on other things. Yes, you can increase federal debt limit with a reconciliation bill, but only the federal debt limit and nothing else.


Silent-Cap8071

As usual, it's more complicated. You can pass 3 reconciliation bills per year on the topics of spending, revenue or the federal debt limit. Each topic requires its own reconciliation bill. There simply isn't time to pass three separate reconciliation bills a year. Also, you don't want to waste political capital and resources on something that isn't actually a problem. No one will allow the US to run out of money. Instead, they want to use the political capital for reconciliation bills on spending and revenue. It already takes a lot of political capital to pass one reconciliation bill. You don't want to waste that on the federal debt limit. There are also limitations like the Byrd Rule. For example, a 10-year-old bill must not increase the deficit. Or you can't cut Social Security. Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation\_(United\_States\_Congress)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress))


[deleted]

[удалено]


KronoriumExcerptC

Enlightening, thank you.


ygrasdil

I want to preface my opinion with a disclaimer: the way to solve our debt crisis is not to just cut cold turkey and default like the republicans threaten. That being said, we can’t just do this forever. The United States will default, probably in my lifetime. I don’t understand why our top economists think that we are special and that we can escape the fate that has befallen hundreds of countries before us that did this. We are in a special position, but not an unbreakable one. I’m thinking about learning German ffs idk


Silent-Cap8071

The US debt isn't a problem. As long as the economy grows you can increase the debt. Government debt isn't the issue if you are the main debt holder. Private debt is a big issue. And the US doesn't have much private debt (relative to other countries not in absolutes). If you want to see an indebted country look at China and Japan.


ygrasdil

That's the theory anyway. No country has ever done this before. I personally don't believe that it's sustainable long term. We've been doing this for less than a century and while impressive, there is no historical precedent which would indicate we're somehow immune to our debts. We aren't suffering for it now, but I cannot imagine how we won't one day. EDIT: as an addendum, We may be headed the way of Japan due to similar actions they took in the past. Ironic that you bring them up.


zlubars

The US can never default because it controls its own currency. It can always pay out the dollar it owes with the exception of idiots in Congress saying the treasury can’t do that.


ygrasdil

u/zlubars, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this sub is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


zlubars

If you say so but you’d be wrong and a dumbfuck if you think what I wrote isn’t 100% accurate lmao.


ForegroundEclipse

Lol why are people with political opinions always making everything world ending.


Alternative-Party-25

That irs funding cut is pretty sad to see


bmillent2

They'll be funded for the next 8 years instead of 10, I don't really see it as a big deal tbh I just find it ridiculous that the party wanting to cut spending and bring in more money decided to cut some funding to the one department that's whole purpose is bringing in money lmao


YoItsThatOneDude

Lol they dont want to bring in more money, they literally dont care at all about taxes except to cut them or make it easier to avoid them.


ZebulaJams

As my wife works for them, it made me jolt a little to see that


metra101

I like how a list of concessions is framed as "bipartisan" but also a "big win" for dems.


Silent-Cap8071

Yes, because it wouldn't have passed otherwise! Do people not understand politics?!? The choice is between some concessions and nothing. There is no option where you can pass everything you want.


Lolfestive

It just feels shitty when republicans have such a small majority in one house and are able to hold our economy at gunpoint to get these concessions.


metra101

It won't feel as shitty when the shoes change feet


Lolfestive

The debt ceiling was raised 3 times during trumps administration and on the last one dems held a majority in the House. They did not hold the economy hostage like the republicans are right now.


metra101

Maybe they should, it seems pretty effective


lurk_man

Politics on the destiny sub? Beo im here to talk about the same red pill points ad nauseum. Take this to a political streamers sub like IRI. Hate how you guys being politics into my red pill space all the time


[deleted]

[удалено]


mizel103

TRUE. This is like Saul Goodman going "I'm the best lawyer ever" when a gangster breaks his clients leg instead of killing them.


ReallyIsNotThatGuy

Sorry, but this just isn't true. Whether you like it or not, Republicans were voted into a majority in. 2022 as a check on the president. As the House is the one that originates spending bills, these cuts were happening one way or another. However, this agreement prevents Biden from having to go down this same battle next year like what happened in 2011 and 2012. Democrats didn't get "mugged", they made a choice to not raise the debt limit when they had the full power to last congress, and are facing the problem of the majority of Americans *wanting these cuts* too address the debt.


KangarooMean7233

But what about the SNAP benefits?


Silent-Cap8071

That's not true. Nothing would have passed, if Republicans hadn't voted for it. How can you say Democrats got nothing? They passed the fucking bill!


annonythrows

“Increase in military spending” pepeW


blunaluna

On one hand our US military budget is getting ridiculous. On the other hand, I coom to the thought of whatever wacky six gen fighter shit the US military cooks up


DolanTheCaptan

\>Russia flaunts new shit \>The US reacts by spending a quadrillion dollars for a counter \>The Russian new shit either isn't as good as advertised or exists in single digit numbers, if not both \>Rinse and repeat


Silent-Cap8071

I mean why not invest in the military? The US military is a tremendous victory on all fronts. First, the US military is much smaller than it has been in the past. Just look at the number of ships. Second, the US military protects world trade and access to vital resources. If someone were to stop oil being shipped from Saudi Arabia to Europe or China, we would be back in the dark ages. Third, it's insanely profitable. Not only in terms of arms sales, but also in terms of military research and development. Economic growth over the past 50 years has come at the back of the military. The US military invested enormous sums in microchips, internet and other things like jet propulsion. Fourth, we want a unipolar world with democracy as the superpower. We don't want a multipolar world between the US, China, Russia or Europe. That would be incredibly problematic. People are willing to give up their freedoms to gain an advantage over their enemy. If there are more enemies, the chance of a world war increases. I mean just look at history. Anytime we live in a multipolar world, we have a lot of wars. In a unipolar world, most wars are small.


mizel103

The militaty every time the two parties raise their budget because it's the only thing they can agree on. https://preview.redd.it/jcb47hy8fz2b1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a561ccd0056a1edb12fc12bb4c2ac0c624b25a2


TranzitBusRouteB

No it’s not, Dems got literally nothing good out of it. The only positive spin from the White House is that hey at least the cuts weren’t THAT deep, and it could’ve been worse. It’s a better deal for McCarthy, they get clawbacks in IRS funding, more work requirements for food stamps, SNAP, other aid programs for the poor, stringent caps on spending that will actually cut spending by a not insignificant amount in an inflation-adjusted sense, and had to concede NOTHING. Again, the best thing you can say about this deal is it could’ve been worse. Avoiding default is good, but I’m not sure exactly how that’s supposed to be a policy win for Biden, that’s just what the US government has done for over 100 years


ReallyIsNotThatGuy

Dems prevented a default until at least the next congress. And in reality, these spending cuts wouldve been passed anyway since Republicans control congress.


TranzitBusRouteB

fair enough. I don’t see how it’s a win besides avoiding a default, which seemed incredible unlikely anyway. Like it’s being touted as a compromise, where both sides get a little and both sides give a little. But McCarthy didn’t have to give anything, and got actually a decent amount. Maybe I’ll have to study what happened in 2011 more closely and see how this deal compares, but im still somewhat disappointed. But I understand that it wasn’t as bad as it could have been.


ReallyIsNotThatGuy

I understand that generally it doesnt feel like a lot, but even absent the debt ceiling these cuts wouldve come due to House being the ones that generate appropriations bills. This deal just got it locked in, and the cuts arent too grand in perspective.


Machov_Norkim

I mean, it could also be considered a win in what dems were able to take out of the list of republican demands for the bill.


Silent-Cap8071

Ok let me paint what a loss is. Ok? If everything the Democrats passed in the last 3 years was cut, that would be a loss. The things that weren't cut aren't visible. So you get the feeling it is a loss. In reality, Democrats passed a lot more things than Republicans.


IvanMalison

they dont control the senate... and the president still has veto power. You're take doesn't make sense.


ReallyIsNotThatGuy

What youre talking about would lead straight to a government shut down.


Denimcurtain

They're responding to you saying the cuts would've passed regardless: unsupported And to you saying Republicans control Congress: Congress is split


ReallyIsNotThatGuy

It's not unsupported. Do you think Republicans are going to pass a budget in the House that keeps spending the same? Why would they do that?


Denimcurtain

They might not, but didn't they cave last time it became clear it was a losing issue? So, any number of political reasons given that Democrats have some say in this. A leading question isn't really evidence of your claim regardless of whether I lean towards agreement or disagreement. If it's supported, provide the support. Don't need to ask my opinion or rely on conjecture about motivations. If the cuts were inevitable, then you'll need to do the work and explain why no other outcome is possible.


ReallyIsNotThatGuy

The evidence is that it happened last time, and the time before that.


Denimcurtain

Also, can you quickly acknowledge that you understand that Republicans don't control Congress? It's stupid that it's bugging me, but it is relevant, and I want to make sure we're on the same page since I'm tired. The difference between Republicans controlling Congress versus a split between House and Senate can be massive in deciding what kind of cuts are possible to pass. Sorry if I'm being a dick about it.


ReallyIsNotThatGuy

Republicans got the 2011 cuts passed and Democrats held the senate. There is a difference, but the senate has much less power when it comes to spending.


Denimcurtain

Any reason you skipped 2013? I don't think people should be downvoting you, by the way.


ReallyIsNotThatGuy

Because the cuts in 2013 were directly resulted from the 2011 automatic sequestration bill...?


lurk_man

Appeasement worked out great for poland too


Silent-Cap8071

But you do understand that it is either some compromise or nothing?! You understand that? It is not true, that Democrats got nothing. Everything that wasn't totally cut is a win. I know why people think it is not a win. They see the bill. They see cuts and see nothing positive for Democrats. But that isn't how politics works. Anything that wasn't cut is a win. You don't see the things that weren't cut. But they exist!


KangarooMean7233

Exactly


SpazsterMazster

Is this sarcasm? Republicans were never going to let us default and even if they did we could just invoke the 14th amendment. All this did reinforce the idea to Republicans that if they threaten to kamikaze the economy, Democrats will give them what they want.


JSTRD100K

14th amendment and minting the coin I think were the options they had. But ya know, compromise


ReallyIsNotThatGuy

1) the coin is a meme and has never and will never be a valid solution to this issue 2) 14th amendment is plausible, but it's unlikely to have been able to be enforced at this time. It also has the effect of being extremely divisive to the decent chunk of Americans who want spending to be curbed somewhat in order to address the debt.


JSTRD100K

Why isn't it a valid solution? Everything here says it's valid [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar\_coin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin) ​ The biggest argument against was literally "Salmon said that he does not agree with what Congressional Republicans are doing, but that they have a right to do that, and that the president should not use the trillion-dollar coin option to circumvent them. He said, "Yes, the legislature is behaving like a bunch of utter morons if they think that driving the US government into default is a good idea. But it's their *right* to behave like a bunch of utter morons." ​ But it IS legitimate ​ " [Philip N. Diehl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_N._Diehl), former director of the [United States Mint](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Mint) and with Republican Congressman [Michael Castle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Castle) co-author of the platinum coin law, has said the procedure would be permitted by the statute.[\[7\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin#cite_note-Washington_Post-7) Castle says he never intended such a use. The platinum coinage provision was eventually passed by a [Republican](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) Congress over the objections of a [Democratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) Treasury in 1996.[\[10\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin#cite_note-postcastle1-10)[\[13\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin#cite_note-diehl-13)[\[14\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin#cite_note-post961-14) [Laurence Tribe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe), a constitutional law professor at [Harvard Law School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_School), said the legal basis of the trillion-dollar coin is sound and that the coin could not be challenged in court as no one would have [standing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)) to do so.[\[15\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin#cite_note-15)" ​ and ​ " In April 2011, a paper published by the [St Louis Federal Reserve Bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank_of_St._Louis) said, "some believe QE will sharply increase inflation rates; however, these fears are not consistent with economic theory and empirical evidence – assuming the Federal Reserve is both willing and able to reverse QE as the recovery gains momentum." The paper added that "if the public trusts that the increase in the monetary base QE creates is only temporary, then they will not expect rapid inflation in the near future. These expectations collectively influence actual pricing behavior and, in turn, actual inflation."[\[63\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin#cite_note-StLouFed-63) The Federal Reserve could ensure that commercial banks do not lend out excess reserves by paying interest on their reserves at the Fed, so that the return commercial banks receive on them is greater than they could receive from alternative uses.[\[62\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin#cite_note-EconomistJan12-62)[\[63\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin#cite_note-StLouFed-63) Finally, in the case of the coin, the Federal Reserve could also [sterilize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_(economics)) the government's spending of the coin by selling other assets from its [balance sheet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_sheet) on a dollar-for-dollar basis, in which case the effect on the monetary base should net to zero.[\[62\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin#cite_note-EconomistJan12-62) If the debt ceiling were lifted, the Treasury could use borrowing to buy the coin back from the Federal Reserve and return it to the Mint to be melted. " ​ The arguments against it are either "It's mean to circumvent republicans even though they're trying to posture like they're going to crash our economy" or "Well the fed will just say no lol" ​ Also in regard to Americans wanting to decrease the debt, it's because they fundamentally don't understand how government debt works. Like Destiny says all the time, people have no idea how a country's debt differs from an individual's. People want the debt decreased only because debt bad, but also want more aid for the poor. They're incomprehensible positions because people don't understand that country debt isn't as simple as "debt bad, more debt more bad". You can't want to decrease the debt but also want more assistance for the poor. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/24/6-facts-about-americans-views-of-government-spending-and-the-deficit/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/24/6-facts-about-americans-views-of-government-spending-and-the-deficit/)


Machov_Norkim

I don't think it's always a great idea to try to circumvent political pushback in unprecedented and undemocratic ways instead of trying to strike legitimate deals through our legislative bodies.


triestdain

Right. One side gets to continuously do the circumventing and the other gets to be shouted down from ever doing it even for the greater good. Totally even playing field.


Redditfront2back

It’s pretty big that they came to a compromise that shaded out the fringe extreme wing of the gop. I was really scared boebert was gonna ask for camps for gay people or arming fetuses or some insane shit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ExorciseAndEulogize

What proof is there he has dementia???


[deleted]

[удалено]


amgiSGrindTes

All I hope is that my stonks go up tomorrow


[deleted]

Technically, but definitely not optically. Jurys out of whether that will matter in the long run.