4 ms·

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

by tivert 3y ago

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?

kylehotchkiss 3y ago
The solution to this thing always seems to be "social security is going to stop payments during the default so all recipients will clog their representatives phones threatening to vote for the other party"
- ttymck 3y ago
  This should tell you more about the ineffectiveness of our "democracy" than it does about the integrity of the individuals in office
dist-epoch 3y ago
They won't. Both republicans and democrats are heavily invested in the stock market which will crash and burn if US defaults. It's all a show.
- blibble 3y ago
  in games of chicken there's one possible outcome where both sides lose
  - dist-epoch 3y ago
    In fast reaction time ones. This is a slow burner.
- kccoder 3y ago
  Couldn't some reps just bet against the market, and invest in other currencies, and ...?
bryanlarsen 3y ago
I don't think both-sidesism is appropriate here. The Democrats did not pull this stunt on the Republicans even though the $1T Trump tax cuts could have been used as a motivation.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  Yeah, funny how the GOP only pulls this stuff when there's a Dem president (and the Dems have never pulled this on a R president).
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Yeah, funny how the GOP only pulls this stuff when there's a Dem president (and the Dems have never pulled this on a R president). 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.
    - UncleOxidant 3y ago
      > like trying to abolish the filibuster or pack the Supreme court 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.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > Note that they haven't been able to do either. They were very, very close. IMHO, it's only a matter of time, and when it happens, there will be no delay.
    - yamtaddle 3y ago
      > The Dems like spending, so they're not going to challenge the debt. 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?
emodendroket 3y ago
Agreeing to negotiate or compromise itself legitimates the strategy of refusing to pass the debt ceiling.
- tivert 3y ago
  > Agreeing to negotiate or compromise itself legitimates the strategy of refusing to pass the debt ceiling. And defaulting is somehow better than that?
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Once you agree to make concessions because your counterparty threatens to cause economic disaster if you do not, you have encouraged them to do that over and over again to get their way.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > Once you agree to make concessions because your counterparty threatens to cause economic disaster if you do not, you have encouraged them to do that over and over again to get their way. 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.
      - yamtaddle 3y ago
        Only one party's making demands and threatening to drive off the cliff if those demands are not met, though.
zaptheimpaler 3y ago
It's not purely a question of cooperation. The debt is real. How many times are they going to raise the debt ceiling and how high will inflation go if they keep doing that?
- bullfightonmars 3y ago
  ...until taxes are raised to an appropriate level to cover expenditures?
- GrinningFool 3y ago
  When my bills come due, I can't refuse to pay while I figure out how to reduce my spending/increase my income in the future. No matter how much I need to change that future spending, I still owe money today. How is this different?
  - sacrosancty 3y ago
    [dead]
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  The "debt ceiling" and having to raise it separately from committing to spend money is basically a dumb accident that we can't get rid of because one side finds it politically useful to do this dance every time the other party's got the presidency, and the other side's terrified of the attack ads that would play if they proposed getting rid of it.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I haven't seen much correlation between the debt ceiling and inflation, so I would guess "not very high".
mc32 3y ago
Enough of the print moar money. It's time we defaulted, so the fed, treasury sec and the GOV finally take budgets and their deficits seriously and not act like the GOV is living like a trust fund kid where mommy and daddy (taxpayers and foreign investors) ensure the funds keep flowing. 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.
- lghh 3y ago
  Ah yes, hold the economy hostage to teach a few people in government offices a lesson. Certainly, the outcomes of that will only affect those people in office.
- MisterBastahrd 3y ago
  What is the Fed supposed to do when Congress creates the budget and allocates money to be spent? This is Congress attempting to not pay for what it already pledged to pay for, all because they think they can strongarm a far-right agenda through in legislation.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  The 90s "irrational exuberance" (to quote Greenspan) years being budgetary hard times is... not a take I've seen before. (the crash wasn't until '01/'02)
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Bipartisanship is dead. Both sides see the other as terrorists who only negotiate in bad faith. They also believe anyone calling for it is doing so in bad faith which is why you are being downvoted.
- jaybrendansmith 3y ago
  I call Bothsidesism. There's only one side that are political terrorists. Only one side has consistently blown up the economy and budget. 25% of the current debt is from Trump's tax cuts for the 1%. Only one side tried to overthrow the government, and won't back away from the big lie. It's exhausting. It would be one thing if anything they wanted was based on facts, or logic, or something. But no, it's all nonsense, just more weaponized propaganda from the billionaires. So yes, I think that side is deserving of a $1T platinum coin, and the 14th amendment, and oh so much more.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Well you certainly see the other side as terrorists. Pretty sure the other side sees you the same way.
    - jaybrendansmith 3y ago
      Stupid is as stupid does.

by tivert 3y ago

kylehotchkiss 3y ago

The solution to this thing always seems to be "social security is going to stop payments during the default so all recipients will clog their representatives phones threatening to vote for the other party"

ttymck 3y ago
This should tell you more about the ineffectiveness of our "democracy" than it does about the integrity of the individuals in office

dist-epoch 3y ago

They won't. Both republicans and democrats are heavily invested in the stock market which will crash and burn if US defaults. It's all a show.

blibble 3y ago
in games of chicken there's one possible outcome where both sides lose
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  In fast reaction time ones. This is a slow burner.
kccoder 3y ago
Couldn't some reps just bet against the market, and invest in other currencies, and ...?

bryanlarsen 3y ago

I don't think both-sidesism is appropriate here. The Democrats did not pull this stunt on the Republicans even though the $1T Trump tax cuts could have been used as a motivation.

UncleOxidant 3y ago
Yeah, funny how the GOP only pulls this stuff when there's a Dem president (and the Dems have never pulled this on a R president).
- tivert 3y ago
  > Yeah, funny how the GOP only pulls this stuff when there's a Dem president (and the Dems have never pulled this on a R president). 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.
  - UncleOxidant 3y ago
    > like trying to abolish the filibuster or pack the Supreme court 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.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > Note that they haven't been able to do either. They were very, very close. IMHO, it's only a matter of time, and when it happens, there will be no delay.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    > The Dems like spending, so they're not going to challenge the debt. 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?

emodendroket 3y ago

Agreeing to negotiate or compromise itself legitimates the strategy of refusing to pass the debt ceiling.

tivert 3y ago
> Agreeing to negotiate or compromise itself legitimates the strategy of refusing to pass the debt ceiling. And defaulting is somehow better than that?
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Once you agree to make concessions because your counterparty threatens to cause economic disaster if you do not, you have encouraged them to do that over and over again to get their way.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Once you agree to make concessions because your counterparty threatens to cause economic disaster if you do not, you have encouraged them to do that over and over again to get their way. 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.
    - yamtaddle 3y ago
      Only one party's making demands and threatening to drive off the cliff if those demands are not met, though.

zaptheimpaler 3y ago

It's not purely a question of cooperation. The debt is real. How many times are they going to raise the debt ceiling and how high will inflation go if they keep doing that?

bullfightonmars 3y ago
...until taxes are raised to an appropriate level to cover expenditures?
GrinningFool 3y ago
When my bills come due, I can't refuse to pay while I figure out how to reduce my spending/increase my income in the future. No matter how much I need to change that future spending, I still owe money today. How is this different?
- sacrosancty 3y ago
  [dead]
yamtaddle 3y ago
The "debt ceiling" and having to raise it separately from committing to spend money is basically a dumb accident that we can't get rid of because one side finds it politically useful to do this dance every time the other party's got the presidency, and the other side's terrified of the attack ads that would play if they proposed getting rid of it.
Dylan16807 3y ago
I haven't seen much correlation between the debt ceiling and inflation, so I would guess "not very high".

mc32 3y ago

Enough of the print moar money. It's time we defaulted, so the fed, treasury sec and the GOV finally take budgets and their deficits seriously and not act like the GOV is living like a trust fund kid where mommy and daddy (taxpayers and foreign investors) ensure the funds keep flowing. 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.

lghh 3y ago
Ah yes, hold the economy hostage to teach a few people in government offices a lesson. Certainly, the outcomes of that will only affect those people in office.
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
What is the Fed supposed to do when Congress creates the budget and allocates money to be spent? This is Congress attempting to not pay for what it already pledged to pay for, all because they think they can strongarm a far-right agenda through in legislation.
yamtaddle 3y ago
The 90s "irrational exuberance" (to quote Greenspan) years being budgetary hard times is... not a take I've seen before. (the crash wasn't until '01/'02)

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Bipartisanship is dead. Both sides see the other as terrorists who only negotiate in bad faith. They also believe anyone calling for it is doing so in bad faith which is why you are being downvoted.

jaybrendansmith 3y ago
I call Bothsidesism. There's only one side that are political terrorists. Only one side has consistently blown up the economy and budget. 25% of the current debt is from Trump's tax cuts for the 1%. Only one side tried to overthrow the government, and won't back away from the big lie. It's exhausting. It would be one thing if anything they wanted was based on facts, or logic, or something. But no, it's all nonsense, just more weaponized propaganda from the billionaires. So yes, I think that side is deserving of a $1T platinum coin, and the 14th amendment, and oh so much more.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Well you certainly see the other side as terrorists. Pretty sure the other side sees you the same way.
  - jaybrendansmith 3y ago
    Stupid is as stupid does.