Budget Fight (FY23 and Beyond...)

[Fergasun]

Seems like the parameters for a deal are in place. Spending caps... some debate over increading defense and VA (increasing VA probably will get decent dem support).  Other programs capped.  A 2 year debt ceiling raise.  GOP seems mad about losing work requirements, so not sure what they will expect. 

 

Both progressives and conservatives are starting to raise a racket.  

 

Federal spending needs to be a huge 2024 discussion at all Federal elections.  "Should the debt limit be a bargaining chip?"  "If you want to cut spending, what is your detailed plan?".  Come back and tell me if it is asked in any debates.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I agree with the people saying we should get rid of the debt ceiling. Seems like an arbitrary way to **** ourselves. And it just sounds so good while we are doing it. We don’t want to increase our debt do we? 
 

I imagine Biden has regrets.

 

https://www.rollcall.com/2022/10/21/biden-dismisses-calls-for-abolishing-debt-limit/

 

President Joe Biden on Friday rejected a push from congressional Democrats to get rid of the statutory debt ceiling, calling the idea of doing so “irresponsible.”

 

Biden’s statement comes as Democrats are bracing for a showdown expected late next year with Republicans over the federal borrowing limit deadline. Republicans see this negotiation as an opportunity to push for their policy goals if they win the majority in the House, and some Democrats want the party to take action during the lame duck session to avoid this scenario.

Edited May 27, 2023 by CousinsCowgirl84

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

Seems like the parameters for a deal are in place. Spending caps... some debate over increading defense and VA (increasing VA probably will get decent dem support).  Other programs capped.  A 2 year debt ceiling raise.  GOP seems mad about losing work requirements, so not sure what they will expect. 

 

Both progressives and conservatives are starting to raise a racket.  

 

Federal spending needs to be a huge 2024 discussion at all Federal elections.  "Should the debt limit be a bargaining chip?"  "If you want to cut spending, what is your detailed plan?".  Come back and tell me if it is asked in any debates.

What debates? They won’t ask that in the gop debates and those debates are illrelevant since the likely nominee won’t be there. Also, highly unlikely any debates between Biden and Trump.

[tshile]

56 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I agree with the people saying we should get rid of the debt ceiling. Seems like an arbitrary way to **** ourselves. And it just sounds so good while we are doing it. We don’t want to increase our debt do we? 

I don’t know. 
 

saying “let’s get rid of the rule that limits what congress can borrow” seems like an awful idea. 
 

somewhere some college students are smoking weed in their dorm room talking about how the manufactured crisis’ point is to get public approval for removing the cap on what congress can borrow 

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

I don’t know. 
 

saying “let’s get rid of the rule that limits what congress can borrow” seems like an awful idea. 
 

 

What congress can borrow should be determined by the actual budget.

 

this is sort of like hiring a bunch of contractors to remodel your house then refusing the refinance your home to pay for them when the bills are do. Doesn’t seem right to me.

 

the republicans agreed to spend the money, now it’s time to pay the bill.

[tshile]

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

What congress can borrow should be determined by the actual budget.

 

this is sort of like hiring a bunch of contractors to remodel your house then refusing the refinance your home to pay for them when the bills are do. Doesn’t seem right to me.

 

the republicans agreed to spend the money, now it’s time to pay the bill.

no a budget is what they agreed to spend. 
 

the debt ceiling is a limit on what they can borrow. 
 

they’re definitely two different things. And should be treated that way. 
 

the fact we have a non-functional government doesn’t mean we should remove the rule so our non-functioning government has no limit on what it can borrow.  
 

The fact voters refuse to hold them accountable doesn’t mean we should remove layers of accountability. 

[tshile]

I think this variation of your analogy fits better. 
 

it’s like borrowing X for remodel

 

then hiring people to do the remodel, knowing they will charge you 2x. 
 

now the works done and you only have half the money. 
 

is that the banks fault? Is the answer to just give you twice what we agreed to be willing to lend you? What if X was the max we’re willing to lend you at all. 
 

spending money and borrowing money are two separate thing and just because the people in charge are idiots and can’t figure out how to, seemingly every year, not spend so much it requires borrowing more money, with no plan on how to make that happen without it being a crisis that has to be averted every time… doesn’t mean we should remove the fact that there is indeed a limit on what this stupid mother****ers can borrow 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think this variation of your analogy fits better. 
 

it’s like borrowing X for remodel

 

then hiring people to do the remodel, knowing they will charge you 2x. 
 

now the works done and you only have half the money. 
 

is that the banks fault? Is the answer to just give you twice what we agreed to be willing to lend you? What if X was the max we’re willing to lend you at all. 

 

Except the bank is willing to loan us more money. We are refusing it even though we agreed to pay the contractors. our credit line is 100,000 but we arbitrarily decided to cap the loan at 50,000 knowing what we agreed to spend adds up to 75,000. We should have budgeted better.

 

This argument sounds like the chicken or the egg debate.

 

 

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

Doesn’t  mean we should remove the fact that there is indeed a limit on what this stupid mother****ers can borrow 

But we can borrow at a very very low interest rate which ends up (the interest) being a small small portion of future gdp.
 

It seems to me that borrowing money now at a very low interest rate allows you to make investments now to grow gdp at a faster rate in the future and hedges inflation (eg if the interest is 1 percent and inflation is 3 percent) then it is better to borrow as much as you can now.

 

Right now it seems like a 10 year bond is paying 3.375 percent and inflation is 4.9 percent… it would seem selling bonds to spend money now would be in the governments interest since the dollars they have to pay back will be worth less in the future than they are now, even accounting for interest.*assuming average inflation over then next 10 years >3.375 percent…

Edited May 27, 2023 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

You’re not understanding. 
 

i don’t have a problem with government spending and am willing to entertain anyone’s idea on what we should spend how much on. 
 

removing the fact there’s a limit and a process to change that limit, because these assclowns can’t figure out how to gracefully manage this, is not a good idea. 
 

maybe what this country needs right now is to go into default so some people can wake the **** up. 
 

maybe they’ll take primaries more seriously. Maybe they’ll reprioritize their list of issues they vote on. Maybe pay more attention. 
 

Removing a barrier to borrowing and proposing unchecked borrowing is just a hilarious idea to me. 

Edited May 27, 2023 by tshile

[MartinC]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

maybe what this country needs right now is to go into default so some people can wake the **** up. 
 

Average real people will lose jobs and homes, pension savings and investments will lose value if there is a default which triggers a bear market and likely a global recession. 
 

Let’s not have a default. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

You’re not understanding. 
 

 

I understand. I just think it doesn’t make a lot of sense to set a budget knowing you can’t pay for it. I’m not saying borrow whatever you want. I’m saying set a budget that matches what you are willing to spend. This extra limit after the budget has been set makes little sense. 
 

If I don’t understand something it is that if you think setting a budget which every one understand will require additional borrowing then refusing to allow extra borrowing is the route we should take? On the other hand, if you don’t think that then why bother having this extra layer when limiting borrowing could just an easily be done when the budget is created.

I don’t think you understand the consequences of default. It isn’t a problem we only have for a couple of years. It will wake us up the same way a 100ft pine falling through your bedroom will wake you up. 🤪

 

 

[tshile]

Just now, MartinC said:

Average real people will lose jobs and homes, pension savings and investments will lose value if there is a default which triggers a bear market and likely a global recession. 
 

Let’s not have a default. 

I’m aware of the damage. I don’t want it.

 

Doesnt change the situation 

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I understand. I just think it doesn’t make a lot of sense to set a budget knowing you can’t pay for it. I’m not saying borrow whatever you want. I’m saying set a budget that matches what you are willing to spend. This extra limit after the budget has been set makes little sense. 

Well it seems to me that maybe it doesn’t make sense because you see it as an extra limit. 
 

I was trying to explain this earlier but, what you spend and what you borrow are two separate things. They work together to create a bigger financial picture but they are different thing. 
 

having a limit on what you borrow is not the same thing as deciding how much to spend. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

having a limit on what you borrow is not the same thing as deciding how much to spend. 

So what? You decide what your limit is and you decide what to spend. You have complete authority over both. The bank is willing to loan you infinite dollars. There is no real limit except for your self control.

You can set your limit by what you decide to spend.  You know when you are creating your budget you have $100 to spend. But you budget for $150? Why?! 
 

that’s the part that makes no sense and why creating the extra barrier makes no sense.

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I don’t think you understand the consequences of default.

I find it hilarious you might think I need that explained to me. 
 

hey everyone - we’ve been doing this bull **** for a while, we’ve talked about it every time, we might want to consider that maybe the people that actively participate in these threads are well aware of what the consequence of default are. 
 

maybe reconsider that there might be some other reason a person may disagree with you. 
 

But for real the argument reads like this (to me):

 

 

a few days into June the people that passed the budget have already exceeded their means to fund their budget

 

they are having a problem coming up with the money to fund the remainder of the year. 
 

which is half a year. They undershot their funding by half a year

 

so we think the best idea is to remove the limit on what they can borrow. Just let them borrow whatever they want. 
 

Thats how it sounds to me and I disagree. the correct answer is for voters to hold them accountable for a dysfunctional government. 
 

In my opinion your idea is just enabling the dysfunction. 
 

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by tshile

[Fergasun]

Here is the deal. Let's say you call yourself a "conservstive."  If you are serious about the debt, you say: 

- We will balance the budget in 15 years.  We will cap the debt limit at $47T. 

- We will do X for social security.

- We will do Y for medicare/medicaid.

- We will do Z for discretionary. 

- We will do A for revenue. 

 

No games. No fooling. No acting like you can cap it suddenly. You campaign on it. You own it. You run with a long game plan.  You have all your candidates treating it differently than you have for the past forever years. 

 

Whenever the debt limit comes up, you reiterate your plan. You fight.  You push for X, Y, Z, and A.   You re-iterate X, Y, Z, A.  You have credibility. 

 

Right now what the conservatives are doing is bull****.  When Obama was President they fought.  When they had Congress, they didn't do jack.  Right now what they are fighting for is priorities.  

 

I just articulated a rational strategy for rational people who care about the debt.  Tell me who is saying this politically right now. 

[88Comrade2000]

The gop wants the default. They feel Biden will get more of the blame and their master Trump will cruise to victory in Nov. 24.

Edited May 27, 2023 by 88Comrade2000

[PleaseBlitz]

18 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

The gop wants the default. They feel Biden will get more of the blame and their master Trump will cruise to victory in Nov. 24.

You sir, are so smart. Brilliant analysis. Kudos. 
 

 

Also:

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Dark Brandon strikes again.

[PleaseBlitz]

 

After all this drama and stress, i feel like we got to exactly where everyone expected to get to. 

[88Comrade2000]

Ah, the end of McCarthy. Maga wants no deal and some maga will call for a vote to remove maga.

[Jabbyrwock]

32 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

After all this drama and stress, i feel like we got to exactly where everyone expected to get to. 

 

Is McCarthy wearing sweat socks in that picture?  I mean, yada yada yada debt ceiling and such, but I swear he's wearing sweat socks and those sneaker/loafers you get at Walmart.

[PleaseBlitz]

8 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

Is McCarthy wearing sweat socks in that picture?  I mean, yada yada yada debt ceiling and such, but I swear he's wearing sweat socks and those sneaker/loafers you get at Walmart.

[Fergasun]

Here's what McCarthy and Biden are telling their Congressfolks.  "This is the only deal in town.  We did our best with the GOP House bill and WH budget as starting points.  Feel free to vote against it, but this is the only deal in town."  

... 

and it will probably pass the House at 220 to 215 and Senate at 65 to 35. 

 

I think the Freedom Caucus replacing McCarthy is a wildcard, but unlikely.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[The Evil Genius]

Hobert thinking she's the base. 😆