3 ms·

Part of me wants the democrats to keep playing chicken with the Republicans. I generally back the liberal policies outlined in the democrats version of the bill

Part of me wants the democrats to keep playing chicken with the Republicans. I generally back the liberal policies outlined in the democrats version of the bill (it’s focused on closing tax loopholes to pay for things). More importantly Republicans have shown time and again they are willing to consistently hold their positions without any expectation they'll have to compromise and berate other legislators and bully around to get what they want, I don’t want to see democrats give in to that again and again and again EDIT: Couldn't Biden do an end run around the Republicans by strategically calling an emergency session after hours via Article II, Section 3 of the constitution? It has no requirements that the majority leader be there to start quorum, only that the session has been declared. Then attending democrats could just vote this thing through and call absence on the rest

yamtaddle 3y ago
Best case IMO is that the deadline passes, Biden picks one method or another to pay for the already-budgeted-by-Congress spending anyway, that's affirmed as OK by the courts, and I get to never hear the words "debt ceiling" ever again.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  This seems like an optimistic view of the courts.
  - UncleOxidant 3y ago
    Sure, there's a chance the "original intent" contingent says it's limited only to gov pensions and military. In that case go with the $1T platinum coin. There's also some option for the Fed to buy treasuries maturing during that period.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      I think that they rule based on their political preferences and come up with post hoc rationalizations afterward. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter which method is chosen.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    Oh, it's definitely an "... and also, I want a pony!" kind of wish.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  Yep. Shut down these silly games of chicken.
- throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
  Which methods have been affirmed by the courts? Congress controls the budget/purse by constitution right? I heard somewhere that the tech doesn't even exist to prioritize spending beyond a pure FIFO spending approach.
  - sn0wf1re 3y ago
    I think they are saying they would like to have the debt limit as a concept taken to court by Biden ignoring it. The debt limit itself is not explicitly in the constitution.
  - tssva 3y ago
    I believe they meant that they wish whatever method Biden chooses is affirmed by the courts when the eventual case challenging it comes. Some believe the debt limit is unconstitutional due to the 14th amendment which states, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." I think it is a shaky argument, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer or any other kind of lawyer.
partiallypro 3y ago
Biden should just take the nuclear approach and challenge the constitutionality of the debt ceiling (really good argument for it) and also threaten to "mint the coin" if the GOP doesn't stop the game they are playing.
UncleOxidant 3y ago
I want to see Biden invoke the 14th ammendment and keep paying the bills. This will be challenged in the Supreme Court. If the Court goes with the 14th amendment then we don't have to do these debt ceiling hostage crises anymore. There's a possibility that the "original intenters" on the SCOTUS will say that the 14th amendment only applies to military and gov pensions (a very narrow reading)... then it's $1T platinum coin time.
- tivert 3y ago
  No. They should concede and raise the debt limit now, then abolish it through legislation the next time they have power. That's the responsible thing to do. This fiasco should make that possible, even with the majorities they had during the last congress. Of course, "never give an inch" is now the motto of both parties, so it'll never happen and all we'll get is gimmicks.
  - amalcon 3y ago
    > the next time they have power. This action would require a simple majority in the House, a 3/5 majority in the Senate, and either the presidency or increasing both of those to 2/3 majorities. The last time the Dems had that much power was 2010. Is it really surprising that folks are unwilling to accept a decade or more of giving the GOP whatever they want?
    - tivert 3y ago
      > Is it really surprising that folks are unwilling to accept a decade or more of giving the GOP whatever they want? That's the political reality. If they don't want to deal with reality, then I guess we'll see what happens.
      - amalcon 3y ago
        The political reality is quite a bit more complicated than that, but frankly I don't want to get into it both because this isn't the right place and because it's depressing. Cheers, though; hopefully we can still find a way to avoid that worst case.
candiddevmike 3y ago
There was a theory posted that democrats will cave at the last minute to republican demands when it's really the powers that be want those concessions and are just using this as cover for democrats.
jimbob45 3y ago
If you think it's optically positive to keep playing chicken, wouldn't you want them to fold now and then run off the edge next year? If you do it next year, you're six months away from the election and it will be fresh in voters' minds. If you do it now, everyone will forget but will be vaguely aware that the Democrats played irresponsible games with the economy and remember none of the nuance.
amalcon 3y ago
The problem with a game of chicken is that eventually everyone loses. This is why having that kind of debt limit is a mistake: the only thing it does is allow one party to unilaterally force the other into games of chicken. I'm by no means opposed to taking steps to reduce the deficit, but the debt limit has had the above undesirable effect while simultaneously failing to actually reduce anything.
gpm 3y ago
> Couldn't Biden do an end run around the Republicans by strategically calling an emergency session after hours via Article II, Section 3 of the constitution Of all the nuclear options I've seen proposed, this seems the most nuclear.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  Yeah, we've definitely begun exploring all the various ways our system is broken & vulnerable if too many people in the wrong positions decide to behave in bad faith and ignore all notions of the spirit of rules & laws or of fair play, but I'm not sure I want us to speed-run that process.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  It would only work once. The only thing you need for this to be stopped is having the speaker of the house present to deny the quorum under rules. you're basically counting on absence for this to work. Its a one shot deal (the end run around this is just having the majority speaker camp out near the house at all times)

yamtaddle 3y ago

Best case IMO is that the deadline passes, Biden picks one method or another to pay for the already-budgeted-by-Congress spending anyway, that's affirmed as OK by the courts, and I get to never hear the words "debt ceiling" ever again.

emodendroket 3y ago
This seems like an optimistic view of the courts.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  Sure, there's a chance the "original intent" contingent says it's limited only to gov pensions and military. In that case go with the $1T platinum coin. There's also some option for the Fed to buy treasuries maturing during that period.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    I think that they rule based on their political preferences and come up with post hoc rationalizations afterward. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter which method is chosen.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  Oh, it's definitely an "... and also, I want a pony!" kind of wish.
UncleOxidant 3y ago
Yep. Shut down these silly games of chicken.
throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
Which methods have been affirmed by the courts? Congress controls the budget/purse by constitution right? I heard somewhere that the tech doesn't even exist to prioritize spending beyond a pure FIFO spending approach.
- sn0wf1re 3y ago
  I think they are saying they would like to have the debt limit as a concept taken to court by Biden ignoring it. The debt limit itself is not explicitly in the constitution.
- tssva 3y ago
  I believe they meant that they wish whatever method Biden chooses is affirmed by the courts when the eventual case challenging it comes. Some believe the debt limit is unconstitutional due to the 14th amendment which states, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." I think it is a shaky argument, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer or any other kind of lawyer.

partiallypro 3y ago

Biden should just take the nuclear approach and challenge the constitutionality of the debt ceiling (really good argument for it) and also threaten to "mint the coin" if the GOP doesn't stop the game they are playing.

UncleOxidant 3y ago

I want to see Biden invoke the 14th ammendment and keep paying the bills. This will be challenged in the Supreme Court. If the Court goes with the 14th amendment then we don't have to do these debt ceiling hostage crises anymore. There's a possibility that the "original intenters" on the SCOTUS will say that the 14th amendment only applies to military and gov pensions (a very narrow reading)... then it's $1T platinum coin time.

tivert 3y ago
No. They should concede and raise the debt limit now, then abolish it through legislation the next time they have power. That's the responsible thing to do. This fiasco should make that possible, even with the majorities they had during the last congress. Of course, "never give an inch" is now the motto of both parties, so it'll never happen and all we'll get is gimmicks.
- amalcon 3y ago
  > the next time they have power. This action would require a simple majority in the House, a 3/5 majority in the Senate, and either the presidency or increasing both of those to 2/3 majorities. The last time the Dems had that much power was 2010. Is it really surprising that folks are unwilling to accept a decade or more of giving the GOP whatever they want?
  - tivert 3y ago
    > Is it really surprising that folks are unwilling to accept a decade or more of giving the GOP whatever they want? That's the political reality. If they don't want to deal with reality, then I guess we'll see what happens.
    - amalcon 3y ago
      The political reality is quite a bit more complicated than that, but frankly I don't want to get into it both because this isn't the right place and because it's depressing. Cheers, though; hopefully we can still find a way to avoid that worst case.

candiddevmike 3y ago

There was a theory posted that democrats will cave at the last minute to republican demands when it's really the powers that be want those concessions and are just using this as cover for democrats.

jimbob45 3y ago

If you think it's optically positive to keep playing chicken, wouldn't you want them to fold now and then run off the edge next year? If you do it next year, you're six months away from the election and it will be fresh in voters' minds. If you do it now, everyone will forget but will be vaguely aware that the Democrats played irresponsible games with the economy and remember none of the nuance.

amalcon 3y ago

The problem with a game of chicken is that eventually everyone loses. This is why having that kind of debt limit is a mistake: the only thing it does is allow one party to unilaterally force the other into games of chicken. I'm by no means opposed to taking steps to reduce the deficit, but the debt limit has had the above undesirable effect while simultaneously failing to actually reduce anything.

gpm 3y ago

> Couldn't Biden do an end run around the Republicans by strategically calling an emergency session after hours via Article II, Section 3 of the constitution Of all the nuclear options I've seen proposed, this seems the most nuclear.

yamtaddle 3y ago
Yeah, we've definitely begun exploring all the various ways our system is broken & vulnerable if too many people in the wrong positions decide to behave in bad faith and ignore all notions of the spirit of rules & laws or of fair play, but I'm not sure I want us to speed-run that process.
no_wizard 3y ago
It would only work once. The only thing you need for this to be stopped is having the speaker of the house present to deny the quorum under rules. you're basically counting on absence for this to work. Its a one shot deal (the end run around this is just having the majority speaker camp out near the house at all times)