4 ms·

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.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > Only one party's making demands and threatening to drive off the cliff if those demands are not met, though. 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-representatives-narrowly-approves-republican-bill-to-raise-debt-limit 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.
        yamtaddle 3y ago
        "I've already agreed not to shoot this dog if you give me what I want. Why are you being difficult and holding up the process?" [EDIT] Less flippantly, re-read what you wrote: it's not a refutation of my claim, but instead re-affirms it.
        tivert 3y ago
        >> Only one party's making demands and threatening to drive off the cliff if those demands are not met, though. > [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.
        yamtaddle 3y ago
        "Don't drive off the cliff" "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.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      No it isn’t. In fact it’s exactly what happened. This method of brinksmanship worked once so now this is a regular feature of American political life.
- unpwn 3y ago
  Yes. I would prefer gov. shutdown over republicans getting to have any say in anything.
  - sacrosancty 3y ago
    [dead]
  - deathanatos 3y ago
    … this isn't going to be "the gov. shutting down"; that's what happens when the budget can't be agreed upon and government employees get furloughed. The debt ceiling is significantly worse: obligations the government has already agreed to pay out can't be met; normally, in a deficit, we'd just borrow more money to meet those obligations. The nature of the "debt ceiling" is that it puts the kibosh on that. The situation of the Treasury exhausting its "extraordinary measures" (the current state, in the article) has never occurred. (We've played this particular game of chicken before though, though this is cutting it closer than I remember in the past.) 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).

> 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.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > Only one party's making demands and threatening to drive off the cliff if those demands are not met, though. 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-representatives-narrowly-approves-republican-bill-to-raise-debt-limit 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.
      - yamtaddle 3y ago
        "I've already agreed not to shoot this dog if you give me what I want. Why are you being difficult and holding up the process?" [EDIT] Less flippantly, re-read what you wrote: it's not a refutation of my claim, but instead re-affirms it.
        tivert 3y ago
        >> Only one party's making demands and threatening to drive off the cliff if those demands are not met, though. > [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.
        yamtaddle 3y ago
        "Don't drive off the cliff" "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.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    No it isn’t. In fact it’s exactly what happened. This method of brinksmanship worked once so now this is a regular feature of American political life.
unpwn 3y ago
Yes. I would prefer gov. shutdown over republicans getting to have any say in anything.
- sacrosancty 3y ago
  [dead]
- deathanatos 3y ago
  … this isn't going to be "the gov. shutting down"; that's what happens when the budget can't be agreed upon and government employees get furloughed. The debt ceiling is significantly worse: obligations the government has already agreed to pay out can't be met; normally, in a deficit, we'd just borrow more money to meet those obligations. The nature of the "debt ceiling" is that it puts the kibosh on that. The situation of the Treasury exhausting its "extraordinary measures" (the current state, in the article) has never occurred. (We've played this particular game of chicken before though, though this is cutting it closer than I remember in the past.) 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).