US Politics: Infrastructure Week End

[Mindwalker]

Wait... wouldn't that make an intervention of The Parliamentarian likely? The one that Biden won't overrule?

[DMC]

43 minutes ago, Fez said:

Bleh. Senate Democrats are playing politics with the debt limit, leaving it out of the reconciliation instructions they released this morning. They want to force Republicans to vote for the increase too.

This seems like an unbelievably risky move, with very little actual upside.

As I mentioned a few days ago, I got no problem with Schumer calling McConnell's bluff on this.  It's..extraordinary to say it's the Dems playing politics with the debt limit considering recent history.

[Fez]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

As I mentioned a few days ago, I got no problem with Schumer calling McConnell's bluff on this.  It's..extraordinary to say it's the Dems playing politics with the debt limit considering recent history.

Strong disagree. My position has always been that the debt limit should be abolished. And, barring that, it should always be raised in the easiest method possible; since the ramifications of breaching it would be catastrophic. Democrats have the ability to easily and painlessly lift it right now; to not do so is to absolutely be playing politics and playing with fire.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Strong disagree. My position has always been that the debt limit should be abolished. And, barring that, it should always be raised in the easiest method possible; since the ramifications of breaching it would be catastrophic. Democrats have the ability to easily and painlessly lift it right now; to not do so is to absolutely be playing politics and playing with fire.

Apparently Schumer is worried if he adds it to reconciliation the moderate Dems are gonna use it as leverage to demand the bill is cut.  That's pretty shitty of the moderate Dems, but definitely not worth it.  Regardless, it's the GOP - AND ONLY the GOP - that's played politics with the debt limit.  It was raised three times during Trump's presidency and the Dems never used it as a political ploy.  Even after McConnell was a royal dick using it a decade ago and got the S&P downgrade.  He wants to do that again, it's on him.  I mean, when even Janet Yellen is tired of McConnell's shit, that's when you know enough is enough.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Mindwalker said:

Wait... wouldn't that make an intervention of The Parliamentarian likely? The one that Biden won't overrule?

Nah, raising the debt limit can definitely be done via reconciliation.  It's a one sentence bill/measure, and it obviously is germane to the federal budget, thus satisfying the Byrd rule.

[Fez]

51 minutes ago, DMC said:

Apparently Schumer is worried if he adds it to reconciliation the moderate Dems are gonna use it as leverage to demand the bill is cut.  That's pretty shitty of the moderate Dems, but definitely not worth it.  Regardless, it's the GOP - AND ONLY the GOP - that's played politics with the debt limit.  It was raised three times during Trump's presidency and the Dems never used it as a political ploy.  Even after McConnell was a royal dick using it a decade ago and got the S&P downgrade.  He wants to do that again, it's on him.  I mean, when even Janet Yellen is tired of McConnell's shit, that's when you know enough is enough.

I didn't say the GOP hasn't played politics with the debt limit, of course they have. And if they refuse to vote for raising it in the fall, they're playing politics again. That doesn't mean the Democrats aren't playing politics with it this time too. The problem is if both sides are playing politics it significantly increases the risk of a breach.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

The problem is if both sides are playing politics it significantly increases the risk of a breach.

I'm sorry, but this is insanely feckless.  The debt ceiling is almost always raised on a bipartisan basis.  The only time it hasn't was during the Obama administration when McConnell politicized it (and I suppose also during the 95-96 shutdown, but then it was decidedly tangential).  Now that McConnell and the GOP are threatening to do it again, the Dems are supposed to accept it as leverage against them?  That's horseshit and just encouraging bad behavior.

[Fez]

Just now, DMC said:

I'm sorry, but this is insanely feckless.  The debt ceiling is almost always raised on a bipartisan basis.  The only time it hasn't was during the Obama administration when McConnell politicized it (and I suppose also during the 95-96 shutdown, but then it was decidedly tangential).  Now that McConnell and the GOP are threatening to do it again, the Dems are supposed to accept it as leverage against them?  That's horseshit and just encouraging bad behavior.

What leverage? Republicans only get leverage if Democrats give it to them. If it's in the reconciliation bill there's literally nothing Republicans can do about it. In a standalone bill, Republicans can demand something in return and then there's a game of chicken to see who blinks.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Fez said:

What leverage? Republicans only get leverage if Democrats give it to them. If it's in the reconciliation bill there's literally nothing Republicans can do about it. In a standalone bill, Republicans can demand something in return and then there's a game of chicken to see who blinks.

The point is the Dems should not have to pass it through a reconciliation bill.  Again, the Dems have never played politics with raising the debt ceiling even after the GOP did and the Dems had the opportunity to return the favor.  That McConnell is returning to that well is not particularly surprising, but I wholly agree with Schumer that there's no reason to bend over to the GOP's bullshit.  Your claim that the Dems are the ones politicizing this - and not McConnell and the GOP by threatening not to raise it - is entirely ass backwards.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

The point is the Dems should not have to pass it through a reconciliation bill.  Again, the Dems have never played politics with raising the debt ceiling even after the GOP did and the Dems had the opportunity to return the favor.  That McConnell is returning to that well is not particularly surprising, but I wholly agree with Schumer that there's no reason to bend over to the GOP's bullshit.  Your claim that the Dems are the ones politicizing this - and not McConnell and the GOP by threatening not to raise it - is entirely ass backwards.

I didn't say the GOP isn't politicizing it. They are. But so are the Democrats. Schumer is setting up a fight with McConnell rather than just passing the bill through reconciliation.

You might think that's good politics, but it's still playing politics with an absolutely, no-question-about-it must-pass bill. And I think that's stupid, because there's very little upside to winning this fight, and enormous downside if they lose it (either giving in to GOP demands or breaching the ceiling).

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

I didn't say the GOP isn't politicizing it. They are. But so are the Democrats. Schumer is setting up a fight with McConnell rather than just passing the bill through reconciliation.

You might think that's good politics, but it's still playing politics with an absolutely

And what happens the next time there's a Democratic president and it can't be passed via a reconciliation bill - which quite possibly may be the case in a couple years?  The GOP is - ludicrously - claiming that the Dems should pass that on their own because they're the ones that are incurring the debt.  When, of course, in actuality Trump and the GOP are entirely responsible for the current debt.  The best way to keep the politics out of it, in fact, is to insist it should continue to be passed on a bipartisan basis.

[Zorral]

The fascists here in the US work assiduously to politicize the virus ever more, making it a bioweapon that currently is victimizing their own voters.  Upstate this past week, I didn't see too much of this, because not western NY, but I did see a "Karen" in her big big BIG SUV with a sticker, "Unmask My Kids"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/far-right-covid-vaccines-masks/2021/08/07/4d47629c-f52a-11eb-a49b-d96f2dac0942_story.html

 

Quote

. . . .Hampton Stall, a researcher who tracks patriot groups for MilitiaWatch, said rallies against medical mandates have become the "perfect organizing space" for many extremist groups across the United States. . . .

 

[Freshwater Spartan]

The GOP is always more awful the Dems. But in 2006 the vast majority of Democratic Senators did vote against raising the debt limit showing they are not immune to playing games. Agree with others that the limit should be abolished before something stupid happens.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

But in 2006 the vast majority of Democratic Senators did vote against raising the debt limit showing they are not immune to playing games. Agree with others that the limit should be abolished before something stupid happens.

The 2006 objection was not a serious threat.  IIRC, every Democratic Senator voted against it, but - importantly - they did not filibuster it either, which is the huge difference.  The only reason anyone remembers that is because Obama voted against it.

And yeah, I think any sane person would agree the limit should be abolished.

[Freshwater Spartan]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

The 2006 objection was not a serious threat.  IIRC, every Democratic Senator voted against it, but - importantly - they did not filibuster it either, which is the huge difference.  The only reason anyone remembers that is because Obama voted against it.

And yeah, I think any sane person would agree the limit should be abolished.

I thought you might say something like this. It's still playing games. It's a good thing all the republicans voted in the responsible way that day. What if 5 abstained or got confused and voted with the Dems? Didn't happen that way thank God but it was still wrong of the Dems to vote that way even if the final vote tally was predetermined. Democrats can argue that it was just a symbolic vote but it was still irresponsible and had potential to inflict permanent damage to our country.

BTW I could almost write the same thing word for word about how Republicans voted on Jan 6. Many republicans apologists also characterize the Jan 6 votes in the way you characterize the 2006 votes.

[DMC]

Just now, Freshwater Spartan said:

I thought you might say something like this. It's still playing games. It's a good thing all the republicans voted in the responsible way that day. What if 5 abstained or got confused and voted with the Dems?

Three Republicans did vote against it.  It's entirely irrelevant.  The reason for a bipartisan vote now is precisely because the GOP politicized it during the Obama administration, and thus a credible commitment is necessary.  In 2006 it was a prior era where everybody knew it was just grandstanding and nobody was using it to extract policy concessions.

[aceluby]

55 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

I thought you might say something like this. It's still playing games. It's a good thing all the republicans voted in the responsible way that day. What if 5 abstained or got confused and voted with the Dems? Didn't happen that way thank God but it was still wrong of the Dems to vote that way even if the final vote tally was predetermined. Democrats can argue that it was just a symbolic vote but it was still irresponsible and had potential to inflict permanent damage to our country.

BTW I could almost write the same thing word for word about how Republicans voted on Jan 6. Many republicans apologists also characterize the Jan 6 votes in the way you characterize the 2006 votes.

Is this some sort of unfunny joke?  The debt ceiling was raised without fanfare, with both parties on each side, and as was customary up until that point, the minority party used the opportunity to give speeches.  The Jan 6th bipartisan commission did not pass cloture.

[Freshwater Spartan]

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

Three Republicans did vote against it.  It's entirely irrelevant.  The reason for a bipartisan vote now is precisely because the GOP politicized it during the Obama administration, and thus a credible commitment is necessary.  In 2006 it was a prior era where everybody knew it was just grandstanding and nobody was using it to extract policy concession

A. The vote was 52-48 perhaps I should have said 4 or 5 more but your right it is kind of irrelevant like most hypotheticals.

B. Of course the GOP says that they only politicize it now because the Dems politicized it first. Not sure any reasonable person is going to buy the argument that these kinds of symbolic irresponsible votes were magically ok 2006 but not in 2020. It's really not hard to say they both were wrong is it?

[Freshwater Spartan]

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Is this some sort of unfunny joke?  The debt ceiling was raised without fanfare, with both parties on each side, and as was customary up until that point, the minority party used the opportunity to give speeches.  The Jan 6th bipartisan commission did not pass cloture.

A. My only point that DMC  said it was only Republicans who play games like this and that's not strictly true. Again the GOP is always more awful than Dems.

B. I was referring to the congreu votes on certifying the election on Jan 6. Procedural differences aside many Republican apologists do think that many of the election fraud type votes are ok as long as  they don't pass because they're just symbolic gestures. I think an irresponsible vote is wrong whether it's symbolic of not. Wrong of dems in 2006. Wrong for Repubs today

 

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

A. My only point that DMC  said it was only Republicans who play games like this and that's not strictly true. Again the GOP is always more awful than Dems.

B. I was referring to the congreu votes on certifying the election on Jan 6. Procedural differences aside many Republican apologists do think that many of the election fraud type votes are ok as long as  they don't pass because they're just symbolic gestures. I think an irresponsible vote is wrong whether it's symbolic of not. Wrong of dems in 2006. Wrong for Repubs today

 

Wait... so you're comparing the actual Jan 6th vote that ultimately lead an attempted coup with a debt ceiling vote that passed and lead to (checks notes...) some speeches given on the floor?  Even for enlightened centrists this is kind of a ridiculous "but both sides" take.