US politics - wheeling and dealing, avoiding debt ceiling

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Assuming the US is stable, which I'm not sure is a safe bet.

Again, there are much more destabilizing forces that may impact this country's future to worry about than the debt or deficit spending. 

Indeed, if having to address, say, climate change or income/wealth inequality to secure our future or next generation - both of which are far greater concerns - requires increasing the debt as a percentage of the GDP and/or deficit spending, I'd say it's a fundamental lack of understanding to not prioritize the former two even at the expense of the latter two.

[ThinkerX]

Seems that in Arkansaw, librarians can be jailed for having the wrong books on the shelves. That is disturbing enough. What is even more disturbing is the support for this policy in the articles comments section.

Arkansas librarians say it's unconstitutional that they can be jailed over books (msn.com)

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Assuming the US is stable, which I'm not sure is a safe bet.

That is a problem for other countries, not the US. The US benefits the most from being seen as stable.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Would you like me to link for you the never ending amount of articles there are about why the debt could become a problem in the future, those not even assuming the above are fears of the writers?

Yes, I would! Because again you've done absolutely nothing to indicate that you actually have any reasons to fear it, and the reason you gave - because Republicans may use it as a reason to cut spending that would not have happened in the first place - is a remarkably stupid argument to make.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That says basically exactly what I said, just separating those who literally had nothing versus those who would find it a financial hardship. The result is the same, around half of people in the US do not have the means to pay for what is to me a small bill out of pocket. That's not good and those are likely the people that would be hit hardest by cuts in social programs. 

We're not. I've said over and over some deficit spending is fine and in many cases necessary. I just don't like it as a crutch used for the overwhelming majority of my life. And I do care about what we do today affecting people down the road who had no say in the matter and might suffer for it. Guess I stared at this quote one too many times in a tiny office when I was a young intern:

Many of the issues that concern me are things I'll probably never have to deal with. I'm not that worried about climate change having a major impact on my life until I'm quite old, but I am trouble by how it will hurt the young people at the time if my fears are correct. 

How do you go about reducing deficit spending, let alone the national debt, without cutting social programs?  I'm all for taxing the hell out of the rich but c'mon, how much traction is that going to get?  Taxing the rich?  Slashing defense spending?  We can't even manage to give the Pentagon the money they ask for each year without throwing them a big tip on top of it. 

You really think deficit spending is what's going to get social security slashed?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 hours ago, DMC said:

Again, there are much more destabilizing forces that may impact this country's future to worry about than the debt or deficit spending. 

I agree it's not the top priority, but it's frustrating to hear you guys just seem to not care at all about it or how our government has for a long time now been spending way more than it's bringing in. Again, that's fine for a few years, but a quarter century? 

20 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

That is a problem for other countries, not the US. The US benefits the most from being seen as stable.

We're seen as stable? In what fucking world? If anything we're being viewed abroad as being increasingly irrational and less stable and God knows what's going to happen if a smart Republican gets the presidency and full control of the government. 

Quote

Yes, I would! Because again you've done absolutely nothing to indicate that you actually have any reasons to fear it, and the reason you gave - because Republicans may use it as a reason to cut spending that would not have happened in the first place - is a remarkably stupid argument to make.

Here's a simple intro. I don't agree with every point, but like I've said several times the social safety nets are things that could get axed. Why do you think it was such a point to make at the SotU for Biden? I can show you other polls independent from the one in that article, but in general Americans are worried about the debt and might go along with slashing the very things I think most of us want to expand, in part because they are good with the idea that the benefits are locked in for them but not the generations afterwards. 

15 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

How do you go about reducing deficit spending, let alone the national debt, without cutting social programs?  I'm all for taxing the hell out of the rich but c'mon, how much traction is that going to get?  Taxing the rich?  Slashing defense spending?  We can't even manage to give the Pentagon the money they ask for each year without throwing them a big tip on top of it. 

You really think deficit spending is what's going to get social security slashed?

And that's the problem. We need to tax everyone more outside of those who make very little, but no one wants to do it. It's not popular. We live in a country where everyone wants their ice cream without paying the bill. And in turn I think that leads to a lot of the issues that should be easy to clean up if people wanted to do it. 

I always use the job I work at, a top 100 hospital in the country, as an example. Patient care is great, but many departments are losing money. My job is to examine why and so much of it is due to laziness and when you try to get people to fix what should be minor things, they just ignore you because to them that's extra work. That's how our entire country is functioning. We can do better, but the majority of people just don't care enough if it doesn't directly impact them in the moment. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree it's not the top priority, but it's frustrating to hear you guys just seem to not care at all about it or how our government has for a long time now been spending way more than it's bringing in. Again, that's fine for a few years, but a quarter century? 

Again, it's just a matter of priorities.  And it's really unclear what exactly you're suggesting we do about it.  Tax the wealthy much more?  Cut defense spending?  Obviously most reading this would have no problem with such suggestions.

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

in general Americans are worried about the debt and might go along with slashing the very things I think most of us want to expand, in part because they are good with the idea that the benefits are locked in for them but not the generations afterwards. 

This really is not true.  Most Americans may register nominal concern for the debt, but servicing it at the expense of cutting Social Security and Medicare is NOT something that would be popular with Americans across the political spectrum.  Indeed, quite the opposite.  Medicaid, perhaps, but even the current House GOP agreed to not touch it a week ago.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, it's just a matter of priorities.  And it's really unclear what exactly you're suggesting we do about it.  Tax the wealthy much more?  Cut defense spending?  Obviously most reading this would have no problem with such suggestions.

Obviously tax the wealthy and rich corporations, but taxes in general for the middle class need to go up a bit too. And I know that will not be an easy sell. But eventually we do have to pay the bill. I just can't fathom a reality where we can run deficits forever. 

Quote

This really is not true.  Most Americans may register nominal concern for the debt, but servicing it at the expense of cutting Social Security and Medicare is NOT something that would be popular with Americans across the political spectrum.  Indeed, quite the opposite.  Medicaid, perhaps, but even the current House GOP agreed to not touch it a week ago.

The link I cited said 3/4s, and there wasn't a large split across ideologies, worry about the national debt. Where I think that leads to is the potential for someone on the right making it a big issue while not really telling us their true intentions. Would cutting social programs, especially in a drastic way, be popular? No. Do the people funding these assholes really want that? Yes. And they're not going to stop trying. It's not like elected Republicans care about popular opinion on any of the more pressing issues of the day like gun control or abortion. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Obviously tax the wealthy and rich corporations, but taxes in general for the middle class need to go up a bit too. And I know that will not be an easy sell. But eventually we do have to pay the bill. I just can't fathom a reality where we can run deficits forever. 

Again, this really isn't true.  Or at least, define what you mean be "middle class."  But there are plenty of proposed solutions that would not require increasing taxes on anyone making less than six figures.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The link I cited said 3/4s, and there wasn't a large split across ideologies, worry about the national debt. Where I think that leads to is the potential for someone on the right making it a big issue while not really telling us their true intentions.

...And Social Security and Medicare are even MORE popular.  Further, the American public is incredibly against cutting their benefits.  Not that this is really needed, but see here, here, here, here, and here. 

Hell, most Americans supported Biden's plan to raise Medicare benefits by instituting a payroll tax on those making over $400k - one clear example of why you don't have to raise taxes on the middle class to solve this problem.  And, or course, I think it's safe to assume pretty much everyone you're talking to here would be on board with that.  So again, it's not really clear who you're arguing with or what you're arguing.

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Would cutting social programs, especially in a drastic way, be popular? No. Do the people funding these assholes really want that? Yes. And they're not going to stop trying. It's not like elected Republicans care about popular opinion on any of the more pressing issues of the day like gun control or abortion. 

Except they have, significantly, lessened their attempts.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the shift in the Republican party with the rise in Trumpism.  The Paul Ryan-esque deficit hawks have largely been marginalized.  Why do you think virtually every Republican officeholder ran away from Scott's batshit plan before the midterms?  Hell, that was one of the few things Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell actually agreed on.

The trends of the GOP are actually going in the opposite direction over the last 20 years compared to what you're suggesting.  After reelection, Dubya tried to privatize/"reform" Social Security, and spectacularly failed.  With the rise of the Tea Party, there did remain considerably more deficit hawks in the 2011 and 2013 debt ceiling/spending fights.  Again, they spectacularly failed.  This time, they only went after making slight cuts to the SSA itself - NOT benefits - in their messaging bill in April, and even that backfired.

Did Biden warn of the GOP cutting SS and Medicare during the SotU?  Of course - because that's advantageous to the Democrats.  It's literally our biggest political advantage - to paint the GOP as a threat to these programs.  I guarantee you every smart Republican officeholder/operative shakes their head whenever some of their members help provide that ammo.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 6/3/2023 at 5:10 PM, ThinkerX said:

Seems that in Arkansaw, librarians can be jailed for having the wrong books on the shelves. That is disturbing enough. What is even more disturbing is the support for this policy in the articles comments section.

Arkansas librarians say it's unconstitutional that they can be jailed over books (msn.com)

That is unconstitutional.  I hope the existing Court will see that.

[Wilbur]

On 6/3/2023 at 2:10 PM, ThinkerX said:

Seems that in Arkansaw, librarians can be jailed for having the wrong books on the shelves. That is disturbing enough. What is even more disturbing is the support for this policy in the articles comments section.

Arkansas librarians say it's unconstitutional that they can be jailed over books (msn.com)

Unruly Librarians!

Truly the greatest threat to our generation and our nation's freedom!

We should definitely spend the limited available time of government focusing on this important issue.  Screw fixing the roads or tax collections or infrastructure maintenance, it is imperative that we attack the local libraries.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Again, this really isn't true.  Or at least, define what you mean be "middle class."  But there are plenty of proposed solutions that would not require increasing taxes on anyone making less than six figures.

I'm not sure taxing only people making six figures would cover the bill for what we need to do and actually pay for it.

Quote

...And Social Security and Medicare are even MORE popular.  Further, the American public is incredibly against cutting their benefits.  Not that this is really needed, but see here, here, here, here, and here. 

Hell, most Americans supported Biden's plan to raise Medicare benefits by instituting a payroll tax on those making over $400k - one clear example of why you don't have to raise taxes on the middle class to solve this problem.  And, or course, I think it's safe to assume pretty much everyone you're talking to here would be on board with that.  So again, it's not really clear who you're arguing with or what you're arguing.

And enough Americans will also vote in the people who want to do the exact opposite of what they say they want. The average person in this country is an idiot. 

Quote

Except they have, significantly, lessened their attempts.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the shift in the Republican party with the rise in Trumpism.  The Paul Ryan-esque deficit hawks have largely been marginalized.  Why do you think virtually every Republican officeholder ran away from Scott's batshit plan before the midterms?  Hell, that was one of the few things Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell actually agreed on.

Why are you so sure about that. At the SotU Republicans heavily pushed back against Biden's claims they wanted to cut the big three, and literally like two weeks later they were talking about doing it. Their financial backers want it and most of these clowns don't stand for anything.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure taxing only people making six figures would cover the bill for what we need to do and actually pay for it.

The link you provided a couple posts up disagrees with you.  They provide a number of comprehensive solutions proposed over the past decade plus - going back to Simpson-Bowles (which, tbc, I'm not in favor of - and none of them entail raising taxes on people making under six figures.

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And enough Americans will also vote in the people who want to do the exact opposite of what they say they want. The average person in this country is an idiot. 

So?  Your argument was that the American people would eventually be willing to cut Social Security and Medicaid in order to service the debt.  This assertion is blatantly unfounded, and indeed both history and survey data suggest the exact opposite.  Indeed, one of the links I provided directly polled on this two years ago:

Quote

88% of Republicans aged 50+ and 87% of Democrats aged 50+ oppose cutting Social Security benefits to pay down the deficit

87% of voters age 65+ oppose reducing Social Security benefits to reduce the deficit

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why are you so sure about that. At the SotU Republicans heavily pushed back against Biden's claims they wanted to cut the big three, and literally like two weeks later they were talking about doing it. Their financial backers want it and most of these clowns don't stand for anything.

Because, again, this simply is not the case and is based on your misunderstanding on how the GOP has evolved over the past decade, particularly with the rise of Trump.  I'm not the only one who's noticed this.  See here:

Quote

The debt ceiling deal cements the bipartisan consensus that Medicare and Social Security should not be touched to reduce the deficit. This is a major shift in the GOP, which tried to privatize Social Security under George W. Bush in 2005 and backed Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare in 2011.

But Donald Trump’s opposition to such cuts (as well as the GOP’s increased reliance on older voters and less wealthy white voters) took changes to those programs off the table.

Moreover, even if they did want to make such cuts in the future, it's incredibly naive to think they have the competency to do so.  You mentioned gun control and abortion as issues in which they have exceedingly unpopular positions.  True.  Immigration would be another one.

The HUGE ASS difference is they don't have to pass any legislation to gain policy wins on those issues.  Either the status quo is desirable for them (as is the case with gun control) or the courts do it for them (as is the case with abortion and immigration).  The courts are not going to help the GOP cut SS and Medicare, they'd have to do it themselves. 

And considering the last time they enjoyed a trifecta they couldn't even repeal Obamacare, forgive me if I don't hold my breath.  Indeed, ginning up their threats on doing so - as Biden did with little evidence it'd ever be on the table in the debt ceiling negotiations (and it wasn't) - is not only one of, it is THE BEST electoral tools the Dems have.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

The link you provided a couple posts up disagrees with you.  They provide a number of comprehensive solutions proposed over the past decade plus - going back to Simpson-Bowles (which, tbc, I'm not in favor of - and none of them entail raising taxes on people making under six figures.

And they failed to sell the plan, which has been part of my point. We're never going to do what we need to do. Ever. Greatest country in the world though, right?

Quote

So?  Your argument was that the American people would eventually be willing to cut Social Security and Medicaid in order to service the debt.  This assertion is blatantly unfounded, and indeed both history and survey data suggest the exact opposite.  Indeed, one of the links I provided directly polled on this two years ago:

No, it was that they would vote for people who would be dishonest to them and then they would be willing to stab them in the backs. They would talk about the debt and need for cuts without being specific, lie about how they wouldn't touch things like Medicare and SS and then immediately go after them once they had the chance. 

Quote

Because, again, this simply is not the case and is based on your misunderstanding on how the GOP has evolved over the past decade, particularly with the rise of Trump.  I'm not the only one who's noticed this.  See here:

It can change again quickly. 

Quote

Moreover, even if they did want to make such cuts in the future, it's incredibly naive to think they have the competency to do so.  You mentioned gun control and abortion as issues in which they have exceedingly unpopular positions.  True.  Immigration would be another one.

For better or worse, thank God they're idiots.

Quote

And considering the last time they enjoyed a trifecta they couldn't even repeal Obamacare, forgive me if I don't hold my breath.  Indeed, ginning up their threats on doing so - as Biden did with little evidence it'd ever be on the table in the debt ceiling negotiations (and it wasn't) - is not only one of, it is THE BEST electoral tools the Dems have.

It is, but they will have complete control again sooner than later and the courts will be on their side. The GOP has shown repeatedly that they're not worried about popular opinion and some are openly calling for an end to democracy. It doesn't matter that it's batshit, it matters that they and their base kind of want this. A majority of people do oppose it, but I don't need to lecture you about their structural advantages even when campaigning on dogshit ideas. 

Ask yourself this another way, would the GOP end every social program if they could? Because I think the answer is yes. Not everyday people who vote Republican, but the elected officials who are for the most part bought and totally corrupt. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And they failed to sell the plan, which has been part of my point. We're never going to do what we need to do. Ever. Greatest country in the world though, right?

Who failed to sell their plan?  Simpson and Bowles?  They never intended to sell their plan.  They were commissioned to come up with a plan.  The other plans mentioned in that link are from think tanks.  You asserted the debt "crisis" couldn't be resolved without increasing taxes on people making six figures.  And the fact is plenty of people across the political spectrum have come up with plans that wouldn't.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, it was that they would vote for people who would be dishonest to them and then they would be willing to stab them in the backs. 

That's literally not what you were arguing, as recently as five hours ago:

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I can show you other polls independent from the one in that article, but in general Americans are worried about the debt and might go along with slashing the very things I think most of us want to expand

 

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It can change again quickly. 

Not if you understand American political behavior.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It is, but they will have complete control again sooner than later and the courts will be on their side.

The courts can't do shit about cutting Social Security and Medicare.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The GOP has shown repeatedly that they're not worried about popular opinion and some are openly calling for an end to democracy.

Ok, if the GOP successfully ends democracy, I suppose you're right.  Cuts to SS and Medicare will be on the table.  I'd imagine, though, in such an event we'd have more pressing concerns.

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not everyday people who vote Republican, but the elected officials who are for the most part bought and totally corrupt. 

I honestly don't think they give a shit.  What they want is to stay in power.  Which, again, until democracy "ends" means not royally pissing off their base - which increasingly includes those that are directly and currently benefitting from Medicare and Social Security.

I mean, seriously, wtf.  You and others on this board have complained for years about the Dems' unwillingness to play "hardball."  Now you want them to capitulate their - by far - biggest electoral advantage.  And for what?  You haven't even made that clear - how you would ensure entitlements are safe in perpetuity. 

As I mentioned, Biden came up with a plan, at least irt Medicare.  It wouldn't have raised taxes on anyone making under $400k.  Did the GOP balk?  Of course, but that's a totally reasonable plan.  Until they want to come to the table, why should Biden or the Dems give them anything when they hold the advantage -- plus promises to help Dems continue to get elected as long as the GOP remains intransigent?  Talk about the exact opposite of playing "hardball."

[ThinkerX]

4 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Unruly Librarians!

Truly the greatest threat to our generation and our nation's freedom!

We should definitely spend the limited available time of government focusing on this important issue.  Screw fixing the roads or tax collections or infrastructure maintenance, it is imperative that we attack the local libraries.

Try reading the comments in that article. Measures like this seem...popular...on the Right.

[Varysblackfyre321]

53 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Try reading the comments in that article. Measures like this seem...popular...on the Right.

I won’t say everyone to the right of me doesn’t care for economic issues.

I do believe there are legitimate fiscal conservatives with that aren’t as loony and easy to brush off as say an ancap and there may be some common ground reached and there can be a reasonable debate to be had.

 

But those heavily invested in the culture war I’m finding oftentimes are nihilistic or apathetic on anything that doesn’t relate promoting their culture war some bluntly saying they can’t meaningfully impact the trajectory of anything outside the culture war.

I strongly recommend anyone look up Milo Yianpolis reaction to the 2022 midterms and Matt Walsh’s anger at republicans not getting on with his want to cancel everything that has ever had a rainbow near it. They legitimately just want to use whatever power their side gets to hurt people.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Larry of the Lawn]

18 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

. 

And that's the problem. We need to tax everyone more outside of those who make very little, but no one wants to do it. It's not popular. We live in a country where everyone wants their ice cream without paying the bill. And in turn I think that leads to a lot of the issues that should be easy to clean up if people wanted to do it. 

I always use the job I work at, a top 100 hospital in the country, as an example. Patient care is great, but many departments are losing money. My job is to examine why and so much of it is due to laziness and when you try to get people to fix what should be minor things, they just ignore you because to them that's extra work. That's how our entire country is functioning. We can do better, but the majority of people just don't care enough if it doesn't directly impact them in the moment. 

Lol, and there it is!  Tax the middle class!  Pay down the debt just in case the spooky republicans try to raise taxes and cut benefits.  

Why raise taxes on the working and middle classes?  Because you say so?  Because you think people are lazy and stupid?  You've been shown that it's not necessary to do that to get the revenue you're talking about.

Eta: We should raise taxes on everyone except the the poor because a guy who's job is maximizing hospital profits says so?

Edited June 5, 2023 by Larry of the Lake

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Lol, and there it is!  Tax the middle class!  Pay down the debt just in case the spooky republicans try to raise taxes and cut benefits.  

I'd also add it's somewhat inherently self-contradictory to raise taxes on the middle class just to preserve benefits...that are aimed at aiding the working and middle class.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, DMC said:

I'd also add it's somewhat inherently self-contradictory to raise taxes on the middle class just to preserve benefits...that are aimed at aiding the working and middle class.

Exactly

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, DMC said:

Ok, if the GOP successfully ends democracy, I suppose you're right.  Cuts to SS and Medicare will be on the table.  I'd imagine, though, in such an event we'd have more pressing concerns.

I guess we just view this differently. I think the likelihood of this happening in the next decade is certainly possible and am gaming things out from that scenario. 

Quote

I mean, seriously, wtf.  You and others on this board have complained for years about the Dems' unwillingness to play "hardball."

They should, and demand it, but I have doubts that the plans they want to play hardball with will really work. I want to vastly expand the social safety net and that's going to cost a lot of money, hence why I don't like the idea of just going YOLO on the annual deficit or debt. 

3 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Lol, and there it is!  Tax the middle class!  Pay down the debt just in case the spooky republicans try to raise taxes and cut benefits.  

Why raise taxes on the working and middle classes?  Because you say so?  Because you think people are lazy and stupid?  You've been shown that it's not necessary to do that to get the revenue you're talking about.

Again, to pay for the programs we really need, it's going to cost a lot of money. Everyone who can will have to chip in. Just saying tax the rich isn't going to actually solve the problem, but we should tax the fuck out of the 1%. 

Quote

Eta: We should raise taxes on everyone except the the poor because a guy who's job is maximizing hospital profits says so?

Maximizing? I take great joy in fucking over the hospital to help poor patients who can't pay their bills. And in general just help people pay as little as possible whereas the other people who do similar work always try to upcharge patients. It's a good bit of fun while doing the right thing.