Debt limit antics this go 'round: same posturing for the base? Or for realz calamity?

#226
#226
OrangeBoro said:
Dems have to keep the poor, poor so they can keep sending them checks in return for votes
Click to expand...
True, but Republicans are handing them the gifts. Who wants to run a country of poor folk? Our next issue is going to be feeding and housing all them newborns. We Will be like China in 20 years. The haves and have nots. Over populated.
 
#227
#227
AM64 said:
Sounds like so much BS ... and the GOP caved. So basically they made a negligible cut in the growth of federal spending. It's obese and out of control, but we'll lop a whole 1% off the growth. Yippee. Oh and the bit about rolling back domestic spending to 2022 levels - weren't the feds still operating "under an emergency plan" and still handing out covid funds? Then you have "creative accounting" like for the suspended student loans - would the cost of loan abeyance not be considered "spending"? Only our government could serve up a 5 ton hog and claim there's no pork in it. And that huge $400M cut from CDC's China Fund; wow, some government agencies misplace that much in a day ... some maybe a whole week.
Click to expand...

Reads to me as limiting spending growth to 1% annually rather than only taking 1% off the growth. From 2017 to 2020 the budget grew by $800B. Under 1% growth limit, it would have napking math grown by $160B and total 4 year spending cut of $640B from the actual $800B.

“Our preliminary CBO score shows that the 6 year top lines we set in this bill would amount to the largest deficit reduction bill in history, over $2.12 trillion,” one House GOP leadership aide told Breitbart News. Official Estimate Shows Debt Deal Cuts More Than $2.1 Trillion in Spending

Fully agree with out of control but what am I missing?
 
Last edited:
#228
#228
DeSantis tears into McCarthy's debt deal: Florida governor says US will STILL be 'careening toward bankruptcy' with package to increase limit by $4 Trillion and is proof Washington 'continues to fail'

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis joined a group of congressional conservatives who are ripping a new deal to raise the debt limit and curb spending for two years – saying it keeps the nation on a path toward 'bankruptcy.'

Asked for his assessment, DeSantis told Fox News: 'Well, prior to this deal ... our country was careening towards bankruptcy. And after this deal our country will still be careening towards bankruptcy.'

'And to say you can do $4 trillion of increases in the next year and a half, I mean, that's a massive amount of spending,' he said.

He was referring to a figure cited by Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz and others that the suspension on the nation's $31 trillion debt would lead to a $4 trillion increase by that time.

He also took issue with the spending figures set out by the deal for the next two years – which are already getting Biden heat from the progressive wing of his own party.

DeSantis tears into McCarthy's debt deal and says US will STILL be 'careening toward bankruptcy' | Daily Mail Online
 
#229
#229
NCFisher said:
Reads to me as limiting spending growth to 1% annually rather than only taking 1% off the growth. From 2017 to 2020 the budget grew by $800B. Under 1% growth limit, it would have napking math grown by $160B and total 4 year spending cut of $640B from the actual $800B.

“Our preliminary CBO score shows that the 6 year top lines we set in this bill would amount to the largest deficit reduction bill in history, over $2.12 trillion,” one House GOP leadership aide told Breitbart News. Official Estimate Shows Debt Deal Cuts More Than $2.1 Trillion in Spending

Fully agree with out of control but what am I missing?
Click to expand...

It doesn't reduce the budget; it merely reduces the "growth" in the budget. If you have a spending problem, you don't fix it by deciding to make a minimal cut in what you plan to increase. This is like an alcoholic making deals with himself instead of getting help.
 
#231
#231
TheDeeble said:
So what are the chances a couple of Ds and Rs vote against and it actually doesn't pass?
Click to expand...


The first hurdle is the House rules committee. Has 9 Rs on it. McCarthy deal to get speakership was that at least 7 had to vote for it. Two are dead seat against it. There's one iffy one, can't remember who. It is expected he will go along with it.

But House "Freedom Caucus" today said at press briefing they will fight it. ..... and of course where you can send them checks.
 
#232
#232
Boston Vol said:
“Exact details of the final deal were not immediately available, but negotiators have agreed to cap non-defense discretionary spending at 2023 levels for two years, in exchange for a debt ceiling increase over a similar period, sources told Reuters earlier.”
Click to expand...
you have to vote for it to see whats in it.

1. we will be right back here in a few years because nothing is changing.
2. the defense, and things considered obligatory (vs discretionary) is a VERY broad brush. and I imagine it will get even broader. I believe the DoD has already started referring to global warming as a national security issue. I am pretty sure those "2" items that they are allowed to spend more on are already 90% of what we can actually afford. All the discretionary spending is over the budget. so this is not attempting to fix anything at all.
3. "over a similar period" sounds like their is a floating ceiling for the next 2 years, no hard cap. we are SO boned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#233
#233
LouderVol said:
you have to vote for it to see whats in it.

1. we will be right back here in a few years because nothing is changing.
2. the defense, and things considered obligatory (vs discretionary) is a VERY broad brush. and I imagine it will get even broader. I believe the DoD has already started referring to global warming as a national security issue. I am pretty sure those "2" items that they are allowed to spend more on are already 90% of what we can actually afford. All the discretionary spending is over the budget. so this is not attempting to fix anything at all.
3. "over a similar period" sounds like their is a floating ceiling for the next 2 years, no hard cap. we are SO boned.
Click to expand...

Wait for the Medicare and SS funds to run dry. If you think this little tussle over the debt limit was fun, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Our politicians are doing nothing to address it and the longer they wait, the worse it will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#234
#234
VolStrom said:
Wait for the Medicare and SS funds to run dry. If you think this little tussle over the debt limit was fun, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Our politicians are doing nothing to address it and the longer they wait, the worse it will be.
Click to expand...


Can raise the limits on annual max income for contribution. I say we go to 150k then void up to 500k, then reinstitute over 500k at same nominal rate.
 
#237
#237
Just saw a Barron's headline regarding this (the full story is behind a paywall). This would be one of the VERY few positive developments from this debt ceiling deal.

The debt-ceiling agreement, on track for a House vote Wednesday, would reinstate government student loan repayments after more than three years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#238
#238
VolStrom said:
Wait for the Medicare and SS funds to run dry. If you think this little tussle over the debt limit was fun, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Our politicians are doing nothing to address it and the longer they wait, the worse it will be.
Click to expand...
agreed. this is one once again kicking the can down the road. Except this time they put a clock on it, so we know exactly how long they have NOT been doing their job. No matter who is elected and starts in 2025 they won't have a plan to deal with this when it resurfaces.

oh there will be some campaign talking points, but nothing will happen after the election. just kick the can down the road some more.

the negotiations in 6 months won't do jack. because they don't HAVE to do jack at this time. its just going to get worse and worse. every time it gets kicked down the road it becomes even more difficult to handle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#243
#243
LouderVol said:
agreed. this is one once again kicking the can down the road. Except this time they put a clock on it, so we know exactly how long they have NOT been doing their job. No matter who is elected and starts in 2025 they won't have a plan to deal with this when it resurfaces.

oh there will be some campaign talking points, but nothing will happen after the election. just kick the can down the road some more.

the negotiations in 6 months won't do jack. because they don't HAVE to do jack at this time. its just going to get worse and worse. every time it gets kicked down the road it becomes even more difficult to handle.
Click to expand...
They're kicking the can down the road to the next President and next Congress. As usual, the current group won't do its job. They make it the problem of the next administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and AM64
#244
#244
VolStrom said:
Why pause it at $150k and resume it at $500k? Let's just pause it at $0 and start it again at $75k.
Click to expand...
So you want social security to be a free hand-out to anyone making $75K or less per year? I'm assuming you're either joking or really didn't think that one through. That sounds like something Bernie Sanders or AOC would propose.
 
#245
#245
Vol423 said:
So you want social security to be a free hand-out to anyone making $75K or less per year? I'm assuming you're either joking or really didn't think that one through. That sounds like something Bernie Sanders or AOC would propose.
Click to expand...
Why pause and resume? I actually think the SS tax should apply to everyone and not just the lower incomes.
 
#246
#246
VolStrom said:
Why pause and resume? I actually think the SS tax should apply to everyone and not just the lower incomes.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have an issue with that, and I believe that change will eventually be made. That and an increase in the full retirement age to 70 are the changes that I think will need to be implemented to fix the social security program. Your previous post proposed pausing SS contributions at $0 and not starting them until $75K. That would quickly bankrupt the system.
 
Last edited:
#247
#247
Vol423 said:
I wouldn't have an issue with that, and I believe that change will eventually be made. That and an increase in the full retirement age to 70 are the changes that I think will need to be implemented to fix the social security program. Your previous post proposed pausing SS contributions at $0 and not starting them until $75K. That would quickly bankrupt the system.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should take a lot of my posts with a grain of salt.
 
#249
#249
Vol423 said:
So you want social security to be a free hand-out to anyone making $75K or less per year? I'm assuming you're either joking or really didn't think that one through. That sounds like something Bernie Sanders or AOC would propose.
Click to expand...


We could not afford that. But max now is 160k. Let's LOWER that to 150k but pick it up again at 500k. Or 600k. Whatever the math works out to. That way the vast bulk of people pay in what they pay already and only the very highest income employees pay more at low fica rate, and only past the 500 or 600k threshold.

Maintain status quo for the middle class and solve the deficiency.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top