TPM: Debt Ceiling Deal - outline of a fairly small payment for the hostage, given what was possible.

[kpete]

.............

There are cuts that bring the numbers in a bit under 2023 levels. But they make up that money but taking $10 billion from the $80 billion of expanded funding for the IRS. Taking $10 billion away from the increased funding for the IRS allows Republicans to say they clawed back some of the money going to that mythical army of IRS “agents” who are going to harass ordinary working folk. That’s not great. But $10 billion off the $80 billion leaves the great bulk of the funding intact and it basically protects key social spending

There are two additional provisions which, if they pan out, seem key. The debt ceiling is raised into 2025, so out past the next election. The deal also prevents Republicans from coming back for another bite at the apple later this year when it comes time to put together an actual budget. That’s always been one of the huge risks here. You’re forced to agree to ruinous cuts and then Republicans come back in 4 or 5 months to extort more cuts, this time with the threat of a government shutdown. This prevents that second bite at the apple and basically rules out the possibility of a government shutdown later this year.

Clawing back unspent COVID spending isn’t even mentioned in this piece. Perhaps that’s because it’s assumed at this point. I don’t know.

...............

Again: This isn’t great. There shouldn’t be a negotiation at all. But this is a fairly small payment for the hostage, given what was possible.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/pretty-big-news

[walkingman]

1. There should never have been a negotiation. They played a game of chicken and we lost.

[Beautiful Disaster]

2. But that's not how it works.

In a government with an executive and legislative branch, you don't have the luxury to just say, "nope sorry - not gonna negotiate". Even on this.

Biden was never going to get a clean vote. It just wasn't going to happen. And the 14th Amendment has never been a realistic option to avoid a significant crash of the economy.

Truth be told, this deal is a big win for Biden considering how things were looking.

But we have to understand the options weren't: raise the debt ceiling cleanly or make concessions.

The options were: wreck the economy through default, make no concessions and invoke the 14th, which could severely damage the economy too or make a deal. Sounds like Biden negotiated the best deal possible and avoided a catastrophic constitutional crisis.

[walkingman]

3. If a Rethug POTUS and Dems controlling the House would there have been concessions?

[Beautiful Disaster]

8. Democrats did in 2017.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/how-democrats-rolled-trump-on-the-debt-ceiling

[walkingman]

10. Thank you - I stand corrected.

[dsc]

16. That isn't the same thing

this was only over length not any policy.

[walkingman]

18. It was but technically it was a concession. I sometimes think it is hardball vs softball.

I guess I am naïve but for the life of me i cannot understand the conservative mind. I try but it just seems so nasty and self-righteous.

[Beautiful Disaster]

19. The question was about whether or not they negotiated. They did.

They also negotiated in 2019 and struck a deal:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/22/us-debt-ceiling-and-budget-deal-near-final-suspends-ceiling-for-2-years-source.html

[pwb]

6. You are not correct.

Congress shall pay all debts. Not the Executive, Congress. Article 1 section 8 line 1 of Our Constitution says it very simply. You need to distinguish between the Debt and the Budget.

[Beautiful Disaster]

7. You have failed to show me where I'm not correct.

Can you try again?

[pwb]

9. Here you go.

https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/article-i-section-8/

[Beautiful Disaster]

11. Nope. Try again.

Show me where congress has never voted to lift the debt ceiling. Thanks!

[pwb]

13. No I won't.

I don't even know what that means? If you are not convinced by our Constitution I can't help you.

[Beautiful Disaster]

20. I said this is how it works. You said I was wrong.

You've yet to show an example of where, in the history of the debt ceiling, it's never been lifted. That is the point. The House and Senate vote to lift the debt ceiling, the President then signs it into law. This is how it's been always. Because we have a legislative and executive branch, all parties have to agree to the deal in order for it to be signed. That is a fact.

[pwb]

26. You are talking about the Budget.

Argue with someone else. You are all over the place in your replies. You are confused. Budget, debt, deficit all different. I will follow your correctness and will will get back in future. Meanwhile read the constitution maybe.
These guys know a lot about Law.

[Beautiful Disaster]

27. Oh! I get it now.

You must think you're replying to another person. I won't take offense with the part about me being confused then since you clearly don't know who you're replying to.

I would ask that you read this in the morning when you've got a clearer head so we can find ourselves on the same page.

But let me help bring you back to the conversation you and I were having, okay?

1. I never said anything about the budget or the deficit in any of my replies. In fact, you're the first to mention it.

2. The person I was originally replying to said there should have never been any negotiations. I replied that not negotiating is just not how it works. You confusingly said I was wrong. I was not. There has never been a time where the debt ceiling was lifted without congressional approval. That is a fact. Because we have a multi-branch government, often one branch (the legislative) has the negotiate with the other (the executive) to pass a law that the president signs. I've not been wrong at all. Until you can show me a time where congress did not lift the debt ceiling, which you can't do, it is you who is wrong.

Hopefully that helps!

But I get it. It can be hard to follow multiple posts in a thread, especially for those who get more confused at night. So, no worries there. I hope I helped.

This will be my last reply on this so you're not further confused and can enjoy your evening. Take care!

[pwb]

28. Good.

Put me on ignore. You still make no sense.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. It doesn't say "Congress shall pay all debts"

It says

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
...
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i

"Shall have power to lay and collect ... to pay the debts ..." does not mean "shall pay the debts". It means Congress can, if it wants, collect taxes etc., for certain uses, one of which is paying US debts.

There's a reason that people haven't been invoking this article, but instead the 14th amendment.

[dawg]

4. I'd call that a win.

The additional funding for IRS was for 10 years so there will be time to restore it if we prevail in 2024.

[honest.abe]

21. Agreed.

[The Mouth]

5. The sad fact is that without a supermajority in both houses

Last edited Fri May 26, 2023, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

compromise is a necessity.

No way around it, no matter how frustrating; a House with 222 Republicans and 213 Democrats, they are going to have at least a significant say, period, end of subject, no matter how stupid it might seem.

Politics is the art of the possible; the only things that can really be done without any input from the other party are Senate confirmations when one side has a solid majority. The party in control of the House has the power of the purse, and always will, no matter how stupid and frustrating this is.

[walkingman]

12. Agree - Sadly many people will blame POTUS regardless of the facts. We need to teach Civics more

and students need to understand how important it is in their lives.

[The Mouth]

17. People on both sides don't realize that one goal of the whole system

was to try to avoid a majority being able to completely ignore the opinions and issues of the other side. Works for us, works against us. Politics is about reality, not ideals.

[betsuni]

23. +1

[Johonny]

14. I can't see the current GOP voting for this

Meaning, this only passes the house with a lot of Dem votes. Which, given the unpopularity of the IRS, seems likely.

[jcgoldie]

15. It seems to me at this point they just have to give McCarthy something...

...no matter how small that he can pretend is a win. The nuts MAGA wing of the house GOP won't be happy regardless but its about him saving face.

[BlueKota]

22. Will the Magats let it pass?

So far whenever they balk, the rest of the party falls in lock step with them. McCarthy is incapable, in my opinion, of keeping them muzzled and on a leash
where they belong.

[Mr.Bill]

24. I don't see them passing what's been discussed in this thread.

Kudos to McCarthey if he can get any of them to vote for it, but I have my doubts.

[The Mouth]

25. I was just reading that Hakeem Jefferies seems

ready to die on the hill of work requirements.

This is a trap.

As bad as I think this is, I think we'd get beaten over the head if that was the singular sticking point that caused a default.

A huge chunk of low-information voters will *only* hear "they don't want to make welfare loafers work", not the actual point that these work requirements cause a tremendous amount of financial, physical, and emotional disruption in the lives of the most vulnerable.

Damned Rethugs.... anything to hurt the poor and helpless.




46 min ago
Jeffries blasts GOP push for work requirements in negotiations as "reckless Republican rhetoric"
From CNN's Kaanita Iyer and Manu Raju

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed “MAGA Republicans,” in particular GOP Rep. Garret Graves, for not willing to budge on work requirements in order to reach a debt deal as the threat of a default looms.

“That’s exactly the type of reckless Republican rhetoric that is driving our country toward a default for the first time in American history,” the Democrat from New York told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Friday.

Such comments leave “many to rationally conclude that what the extreme MAGA Republicans want to do is crash the economy, trigger a recession because they believe, as many of them have said, that it will be in their political benefit in 2024,” he added.

Earlier Friday, Graves, a House GOP negotiator, doubled down on the controversial work requirements policy, making clear that they’re not willing to back down. Republicans are advocating for policy that would require more low-income Americans to work in order to receive government benefits, particularly food stamps and Medicaid.

The policy has been a sticking point in the negotiations, and Jeffries said “extreme MAGA Republicans” are pushing for work requirements to be included in the deal that “they know they cannot accomplish through the normal legislative process.”

“That is the reason why we’re in this situation,” Jeffries said.

Jeffries would not guarantee that House Democrats will deliver the votes needed to pass any negotiated deal, saying part of the challenges Democrats face is “it’s unclear how many votes House Republicans can produce.”