For years, Republicans have been professing concern about the national debt – and, during every budget negotiation, Republican legislators have used their unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling as a cudgel to extract budget concessions from the Democrats.
Trump and Musk have not only blown up the negotiat…
For years, Republicans have been professing concern about the national debt – and, during every budget negotiation, Republican legislators have used their unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling as a cudgel to extract budget concessions from the Democrats.
Trump and Musk have not only blown up the negotiated short-term budget that was ready to quickly pass...
Now suddenly Trump demands Congress *eliminate* the debt ceiling?? This is an alarming signal that he has some very bad plans for America’s economy – and for your economy and my economy.
I mean we should, objectively, dispense with (or at least greatly reform) the function of the debt ceiling. Just not for the reasons that Trump probably wants to
Agreed! Context matters. During his single term, Trump accrued 25% of the nation’s debt, much of it due to tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy – unsupported tax cuts that had to be financed by loans!
Democrats now have an opportunity to use the debt ceiling against Trump and Republican legislators. This is definitely NOT the time to eliminate it.
Dems aren't going to hold the debt ceiling hostage over tax cuts because a) The politics are awful and b) They aren't saboteurs willing to hurt the most vulnerable over politics like the GOP is.
The debt ceiling is a weapon only valuable to one side. If they're willing to toss it overboard, help them do it.
Dems should sign on to a permanent repeal of the debt ceiling, which serves no useful purpose and only allows bad actors to make mischief. That said, if Trump proposes 'repealing' it only through 2028, Dems should not play ball. Let the Rs beat each other up.
As expected, he could give a shit about spending (I think the bromance between Musk, who wants a Milei-style destructor, and Trump will end sooner than later) but it has the 2 year debt ceiling extender. Freedom Caucus-types are already balking (with Trump calling on a primary of Chip Roy lol)
Jefferies is saying no, but if I were him I'd say kill it permanently and enough of the caucus will push it through.
"Milei’s severe spending cuts have hit the poor hard. Statistics show that for the first half of this year, almost 53% of Argentina’s 45 million people were living in poverty – a two-decade high – up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023. Some 18% of people were living in extreme poverty, while more than six out of 10 of under-14s lived below the poverty line."
A year into Javier Milei's presidency, Argentina's poverty hits a new high
"For nearly 40 years, Argentina’s poverty level had consistently hovered above 25 percent. But since the far-right Milei took office on December 10, 2023, that figure has skyrocketed.
"Over the last year, the poverty rate reached nearly 53 percent. That is the highest level in 20 years, according to a research team at the Argentine Catholic University (UCA) that has kept track of key economic indicators."
I assume Dems will send back a counteroffer to see how much the GOP is willing to give up. Permanent repeal could be one proposal which IMO should be enough to get most Dems to support it. If the GOP won't take that, there could be other conditions.
I mean, eliminating the invented debt ceiling has been a Dem wishlist item for years; if he somehow manages to get the GOP on board over the next two days on a Clean CR and axing the debt ceiling Dems would be fools not to follow suit. That all said I highly highly doubt that happens and think we're in for a protracted shutdown for what will be the dumbest reason in history.
I also find it hilarious that so many Trump voting but non-MAGA Rs convinced themselves that Trump and Musk were going to do some grand vision entitlement reform next Congress . . .ha! Trump's going to explode the deficit like all GOP Presidents do (and like he did the first time around), and the "Fiscal Hawks" will just have to eat it. Because any actual debt management requires action on mandatory spending accounts; you could cut 80% of discretionary spending and it would make little difference (besides sending the economy into a depression, thus making deficits worse).
Debt management requires making corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share – for instance by bringing back Reagan Era tax rates. The current myopic focus on cost-cutting is unproductive. The revenue side of the equation is far more important.
I'm all for raising taxes on the wealthy but demographic realities will require the developed world to make structural reforms (I'm not talking slashing services) to retirement programs in the next quarter century. The more countries restrict immigration, the sooner the bill will be due.
The double-edged sword there is that immigration accelerates Medicaid enrollment. Check out, once again, Springfield, Ohio, where the spike of Haitian migrants from Biden's backdoor guest-worker program was nearly directly proportional to the explosion of Medicaid enrollees in Clark County as taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for the cheap labor hired at the very jobs that were government-subsidized in the first place. Don't expect this to be an isolated incident, and it's the latest reminder to me that the credits and debits ledger as far as immigration and entitlements is concerned isn't as lopsided as we're led to believe, especially if immigration is weaponized to consolidate wealth for oligarchs as Biden assisted with in Springfield.
It's Medicare and exploding end of life costs for an aging population that are most sending the U.S. to a fiscal cliff, not Medicaid.
I'd be curious to know what in your view was an alternative pathway to growth that existed for Springfield absent immigration. I'm quite familiar with towns that have followed the trajectory of Springfield; their options are basically always a) Reinvent itself as a tourist hub (not always possible) b) Attract a bunch of immigrants.
Occasionally a new manufacturing facility is option 3, but that's often more luck than anything the town did to attract them (and pickings are slim).
Given that Medicare and Medicaid can't and won't survive without each other, I don't think we can dismiss the connection between low-wage employers dumping their employees onto Medicaid and the pending entitlement crisis.
The Springfield situation is Exhibit A of the risk for immigration done disastrously wrong. We've bequeathed their employers both the labor supply, through a work permit gimmick, and their compensation package by allowing them to dump said guest workers onto the Medicaid rolls. It's unsustainable both politically and financially, but I got no sense from Biden or the Democrats that they saw a problem with it.
I don't dispute your premise that more immigration will be needed to prop up both economic growth and entitlement financing, but we needed to foster a culture where the public's intuitive skepticism about immigration could be minimized to accomplish the needed political environment to pull that off. Instead, we spent three years pretending there was nothing we could do to stop 10 million people from crossing the border and then slipped in a backdoor guest-worker program to funnel refugees into manufacturing jobs that pay so low that their workers are all signing up for Medicaid.....even as American citizens are told Medicaid is approaching bankruptcy. It's hard to imagine a more perfect blueprint to destroy our chances at winning over the public on immigration.
I'm not claiming the Biden Admin's response to the record-migrant surges at the border was sound, just saying we have to acknowledge trade-offs in pursuing a more restrictive immigration policy to having to reform entitlement programs sooner (just like there are tradeoffs to a more open borders immigration policy both positive and negative).
The right wing is completely oblivious and/or refuses to acknowledge that reality, whereas the left usually just pivots to "we can soak the rich out of the problem" and with immigration, is struggling to grapple with the fact that strong pluralities if not outright majorities of Western electorates want to slow down immigration rates regardless.
The debt ceiling has realistically only ever been used against us in the modern era. Republicans consistently use it during dem presidencies to get some policy concessions, while democrats are largely unwilling to return the favor. Not to mention that it's simply bad policy — there's a reason that our peers in the global economy are not replicating it in their own governance.
If our opponents want to get rid of the debt ceiling we should get on board. It will help us so much more than it will help them.
From what I am reading, there is talk of "temporarily" scrapping the debt ceiling – for instance, for the next two years. If so, it would be back in place by the time the next president, who might well be a Democrat, is sworn in in 2029.
No ceiling for Trump’s hypocrisy!
For years, Republicans have been professing concern about the national debt – and, during every budget negotiation, Republican legislators have used their unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling as a cudgel to extract budget concessions from the Democrats.
Trump and Musk have not only blown up the negotiated short-term budget that was ready to quickly pass...
Now suddenly Trump demands Congress *eliminate* the debt ceiling?? This is an alarming signal that he has some very bad plans for America’s economy – and for your economy and my economy.
I mean we should, objectively, dispense with (or at least greatly reform) the function of the debt ceiling. Just not for the reasons that Trump probably wants to
Agreed! Context matters. During his single term, Trump accrued 25% of the nation’s debt, much of it due to tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy – unsupported tax cuts that had to be financed by loans!
Democrats now have an opportunity to use the debt ceiling against Trump and Republican legislators. This is definitely NOT the time to eliminate it.
Dems aren't going to hold the debt ceiling hostage over tax cuts because a) The politics are awful and b) They aren't saboteurs willing to hurt the most vulnerable over politics like the GOP is.
The debt ceiling is a weapon only valuable to one side. If they're willing to toss it overboard, help them do it.
Dems should sign on to a permanent repeal of the debt ceiling, which serves no useful purpose and only allows bad actors to make mischief. That said, if Trump proposes 'repealing' it only through 2028, Dems should not play ball. Let the Rs beat each other up.
I have to admit this is an interesting gauntlet throw by Trump: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/12/19/congress/gop-strikes-a-new-spending-deal-00195410
As expected, he could give a shit about spending (I think the bromance between Musk, who wants a Milei-style destructor, and Trump will end sooner than later) but it has the 2 year debt ceiling extender. Freedom Caucus-types are already balking (with Trump calling on a primary of Chip Roy lol)
Jefferies is saying no, but if I were him I'd say kill it permanently and enough of the caucus will push it through.
MILEI A CATASTROPHE for Argentina
"Milei’s severe spending cuts have hit the poor hard. Statistics show that for the first half of this year, almost 53% of Argentina’s 45 million people were living in poverty – a two-decade high – up from 41.7% in the second half of 2023. Some 18% of people were living in extreme poverty, while more than six out of 10 of under-14s lived below the poverty line."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/18/argentina-javier-milei-chainsaw-measures
A DISASTER…
A year into Javier Milei's presidency, Argentina's poverty hits a new high
"For nearly 40 years, Argentina’s poverty level had consistently hovered above 25 percent. But since the far-right Milei took office on December 10, 2023, that figure has skyrocketed.
"Over the last year, the poverty rate reached nearly 53 percent. That is the highest level in 20 years, according to a research team at the Argentine Catholic University (UCA) that has kept track of key economic indicators."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2024/12/7/a-year-into-javier-mileis-presidency-argentinas-poverty-hits-a-new-high
I assume Dems will send back a counteroffer to see how much the GOP is willing to give up. Permanent repeal could be one proposal which IMO should be enough to get most Dems to support it. If the GOP won't take that, there could be other conditions.
100%. What was the point of the debt ceiling in the first place?
I mean, eliminating the invented debt ceiling has been a Dem wishlist item for years; if he somehow manages to get the GOP on board over the next two days on a Clean CR and axing the debt ceiling Dems would be fools not to follow suit. That all said I highly highly doubt that happens and think we're in for a protracted shutdown for what will be the dumbest reason in history.
I also find it hilarious that so many Trump voting but non-MAGA Rs convinced themselves that Trump and Musk were going to do some grand vision entitlement reform next Congress . . .ha! Trump's going to explode the deficit like all GOP Presidents do (and like he did the first time around), and the "Fiscal Hawks" will just have to eat it. Because any actual debt management requires action on mandatory spending accounts; you could cut 80% of discretionary spending and it would make little difference (besides sending the economy into a depression, thus making deficits worse).
Debt management requires making corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share – for instance by bringing back Reagan Era tax rates. The current myopic focus on cost-cutting is unproductive. The revenue side of the equation is far more important.
I'm all for raising taxes on the wealthy but demographic realities will require the developed world to make structural reforms (I'm not talking slashing services) to retirement programs in the next quarter century. The more countries restrict immigration, the sooner the bill will be due.
The double-edged sword there is that immigration accelerates Medicaid enrollment. Check out, once again, Springfield, Ohio, where the spike of Haitian migrants from Biden's backdoor guest-worker program was nearly directly proportional to the explosion of Medicaid enrollees in Clark County as taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for the cheap labor hired at the very jobs that were government-subsidized in the first place. Don't expect this to be an isolated incident, and it's the latest reminder to me that the credits and debits ledger as far as immigration and entitlements is concerned isn't as lopsided as we're led to believe, especially if immigration is weaponized to consolidate wealth for oligarchs as Biden assisted with in Springfield.
It's Medicare and exploding end of life costs for an aging population that are most sending the U.S. to a fiscal cliff, not Medicaid.
I'd be curious to know what in your view was an alternative pathway to growth that existed for Springfield absent immigration. I'm quite familiar with towns that have followed the trajectory of Springfield; their options are basically always a) Reinvent itself as a tourist hub (not always possible) b) Attract a bunch of immigrants.
Occasionally a new manufacturing facility is option 3, but that's often more luck than anything the town did to attract them (and pickings are slim).
Given that Medicare and Medicaid can't and won't survive without each other, I don't think we can dismiss the connection between low-wage employers dumping their employees onto Medicaid and the pending entitlement crisis.
The Springfield situation is Exhibit A of the risk for immigration done disastrously wrong. We've bequeathed their employers both the labor supply, through a work permit gimmick, and their compensation package by allowing them to dump said guest workers onto the Medicaid rolls. It's unsustainable both politically and financially, but I got no sense from Biden or the Democrats that they saw a problem with it.
I don't dispute your premise that more immigration will be needed to prop up both economic growth and entitlement financing, but we needed to foster a culture where the public's intuitive skepticism about immigration could be minimized to accomplish the needed political environment to pull that off. Instead, we spent three years pretending there was nothing we could do to stop 10 million people from crossing the border and then slipped in a backdoor guest-worker program to funnel refugees into manufacturing jobs that pay so low that their workers are all signing up for Medicaid.....even as American citizens are told Medicaid is approaching bankruptcy. It's hard to imagine a more perfect blueprint to destroy our chances at winning over the public on immigration.
I'm not claiming the Biden Admin's response to the record-migrant surges at the border was sound, just saying we have to acknowledge trade-offs in pursuing a more restrictive immigration policy to having to reform entitlement programs sooner (just like there are tradeoffs to a more open borders immigration policy both positive and negative).
The right wing is completely oblivious and/or refuses to acknowledge that reality, whereas the left usually just pivots to "we can soak the rich out of the problem" and with immigration, is struggling to grapple with the fact that strong pluralities if not outright majorities of Western electorates want to slow down immigration rates regardless.
Getting rid of the debt ceiling is a great idea.
Yes, but not if Trump uses massive new debt to finance tax giveaways – in the same manner, and to the same demographics, he did last time.
He’s going to do it regardless.
The debt ceiling has realistically only ever been used against us in the modern era. Republicans consistently use it during dem presidencies to get some policy concessions, while democrats are largely unwilling to return the favor. Not to mention that it's simply bad policy — there's a reason that our peers in the global economy are not replicating it in their own governance.
If our opponents want to get rid of the debt ceiling we should get on board. It will help us so much more than it will help them.
From what I am reading, there is talk of "temporarily" scrapping the debt ceiling – for instance, for the next two years. If so, it would be back in place by the time the next president, who might well be a Democrat, is sworn in in 2029.
What’s the functional difference between “temporarily” scrapping it and a two-year suspension a la every previous debt ceiling standoff
In the past, if I recall correctly, the debt ceiling has generally been raised, not scrapped or suspended. I could be wrong...
Trump will sadly still be President in two years . . .