Don't they cry every time Dems are in office and try to raise the debt ceiling, which is in itself an unnecessary procedure.
this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
185 points (99.5% liked)
politics
23730 readers
2790 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yep, and last time the debt ceiling vote came up, people on the left were imploring Democrats to raise it by a stupid amount / abolish it so they wouldn't need to go through this stupid fight again, but that was dismissed because it was 'unrealistic' or whatever.
And now Republicans are doing exactly that. After they've proven that a small caucus can take down / get concessions from the speaker of the house. Another thing some Democrats were unwilling to do.
Dems hold the key because there will be some GOP holdouts in both the house and senate. It is imperative to vote against the proposal because 1. It is good politics, and 2. It puts some breaks on executive overreach.
However, prepare to find those same centrist Dems who did not want to extend the debt ceiling under Biden vote in favor of this proposal to look BiparTiSan.
EVERY Democrat needs to vote No. This is a requirement. Any Dem who votes for this, or ANY other Republican legislation, should be primaried.
And I have absolutely no faith that Democrats will hold strong and not capitulate, sorry, I mean find "bipartisanship".
Having a debt ceiling isn’t really the worst idea to an extent. You can reach a hypothetical point where you’re not able to realistically pay off your debt to other nations for instance. That’s why instead of raising the debt limit and weakening the dollar in the process, it makes more sense to tax corporations more to cover your country’s added expenses. There are specific things it makes sense to increase the debt limit to do though such as funding education, science and research, renewable and nuclear energy, and public transit systems as these are all value adds for a society in the long run.
The smaller caucus in their party is more closer aligned to the presidency though. A populist president would have a better chance to making progress for a smaller caucus. A small caucus in the Senate is what prevented most helpful or progressive legislation from passing as well, as seen in Manchin and Senima who are both Independents.
The debt ceiling has always been used by Republicans to pressure Democrats into further concessions that would otherwise not have been needed to give. Remember, the debt ceiling is just an extra hurdle towards spending money that was already appropriated by Congress. So Congress as a whole voted to spend all that money and thus a certain amount of debt. The CBO can calculate exactly how much something will cost, so if you're worried about what tax cuts/spending would do to the debt, you can always find out. There's no need to have an additional thing on top of that that can randomly shut down the government.
The debt ceiling is used that way by Republicans for the most part. They don’t want to increase taxes even for corporations, but they try to force a budget resolution by cutting spending when there really is only so much you can cut without hurting people.
The debt ceiling is a reminder that there is a cost to the money we spend, I personally believe we are still far from it being an issue but we should be increasing taxes to properly allocate money for spending. Ideally you want to collect more than you spend, but some instances it makes sense to go into a steeper debt to get those tangible benefits I mentioned.
Really a shutdown should trigger elections because it just shows that the governing body can’t do their jobs.
The debt ceiling is used that way by Republicans for the most part. They don’t want to increase taxes even for corporations, but they try to force a budget resolution by cutting spending when there really is only so much you can cut without hurting people.
Exactly! The Democrats can't use the debt ceiling, because shutting down the government hurts their constituency more. So it's a loaded gun that can only be used by Republicans, and whenever Democrats are in a position to do something about it, they don't. Same with the filibuster, BTW.
So it's a loaded gun that can only be used by Republicans, and whenever Democrats are in a position to do something about it, they don't.
This has basically been my experience as a Democrat-voter for years. "Our guys finally made it in, now we'll finally see those changes they've been talking about" followed by crickets for 4 years 😬
Yep, so many examples of Democrats not doing the thing they could've done when they had the power. Putting Trump in prison (by not hiring a Republican as AG), codifying Roe v. Wade, replacing Supreme Court justices before they die, abolishing the filibuster, getting rid of the debt ceiling, ...
And they always point their little finger when people give up on them, even though the facts are that democrats are either just putting up a puppet show where they're always a vote short for something, or they're incompetent.
This last election had shown that it wasn't so much Trump that won, the Democrats lost because too many people stayed home because they're sick of their games.
"If the democrats got a magic lamp and three wishes, they'd negotiate it down to one wish, and then use that to wish for something they think the republicans would want."
We are 100% on the same page 🥂
I still don’t think increasing the country’s debt should be the first choice, increasing taxes should be the first choice when the spending bill shows we would be spending more than we would be taking in. I’m not sure if they can show they want to increase taxes at the same time on that bill in not, but increasing taxes to cover the additional spending is important.
I do agree that the country even being able to be shut down is a major problem. I would say a shut down does hurt Republican voters more, but Democrat politicians care about their constituents.
It really doesn’t make a ton of sense for either party to get rid of the filibuster at this current point in time. If Democrats won big in 2024 then I believe they should have gotten rid of the filibuster, but they didn’t win big. They needed to win the swing states and at least gain an extra seat or two in the Senate but that didn’t happen. They could have expanded the House under such a situation so it is really unfortunate that did not occur. The main hope now is for Democrats to pick up seats in the midterms and in 2028 to try to make up some of the losses.
Really, anyone that wants to see positive change stick should consider moving to purple states and purple districts from their deep red state/deep blue states. If the swing states became solid blue states then we would have a much easier time passing legislation that is beneficial.
Having a debt ceiling isn’t really the worst idea to an extent.
Well yes, it is a very bad idea, since it's redundant. When a funding bill is passed, the government is committing to funding that bill. If new revenue doesn't cover it, they've incurred debt. The analysis is available before they vote. Having a separate vote on the debt is just another way that legislative rules enable inaction. It gives legislators a way to say they've voted for something even when they didn't vote to raise the debt ceiling to pay for it. It's irrational. Private-sector budgeting doesn't operate this way, neither does public-sector funding in other developed countries.
How is it redundant?
Great, the government is committed to funding the bill, then they should increase taxes to fund the bill.
We should only be incurring debt in specific situations where there is a long run value add. I’m not saying we should be cutting spending at all, but we should be funding our spending by increasing taxes on corporations.
I don’t see the issue with having a separate vote in these situations which should be uncommon, where you are not able to fund the spending because it’s for one of the specific costs that add values to our society.
I agree that private sector budgeting doesn’t operate in the same way as public budgeting, but at a certain point in future it will start chipping at the value of the dollar if our nation is not able to pay off its interest on the debt. My point is that we should be taxing corporations more to fund the spending.
Edit: I don’t see what’s controversial about this take, what’s wrong with just funding the bill?
Dem President: Here's my budget for the year and this is how much it would cost. Congress: We agree to pay for that. Dem President: Great, I need money to pay for things in the budget. Rep Congress: The president is irrationally spending money (on things we approved) we can't possibly do that!
I would say it would only be irrational in the long run if we are not making a plan to increase taxes to go along with the increased costs, at least for costs which don’t have a value add later down the line. If X amount is what it will cost to pay everything then we should increase taxes on corporations to be able to collect at minimum X amount, if not more.
Yeah, but the astroturfing botfarms are only activated to foment "oohh aahh yeah gotta be responsible with our children's debt" opinions when it's the other way around. And of course all big "news" entertainment papers and shows are in on it because of access and money. I mean, they're all doing what they're paid for and the general public can't be arsed to be smart about it, call bullshit and cut off the value extraction because of perceived inconveniences (data harvesting = ability to manipulate/steer public opinion = value to sell to those seeking power & control). the populace is the commodity being sold here.
We are all cooked
Yes.
Cause that's how much more the debt will go up cause of the tax cuts to the rich.
why we need this? wasn't muskrat supposed to save like 3x that all by his little self?
we could also do m4a and save that much or more on health care--every two years.
Simple answer? Tax cuts for the rich are going to have to be paid for by creating more public debt.
The problem here is that you're under the assumption that this isn't all just intentional. Sure you could ask them if they don't want this why did they do that--but the whole act was just to pacify you while they're already onto the next thing. Everything they do is for their personal enrichment no matter the excuse. Also they won't have to answer any of these types of questions because they have Newmax and their ilk in the press room nowadays and they are far from giving a shit about anything remotely close to that.
A sign of efficiency is often increased costs. /s
I mean why stop there let's go 999 trillion!
∞ trillion
We are about to have to print million dollar bills aren't we. I believe it was Zimbabwe that has crazy bill amounts?
Any member of the Democrats voting for this should be exposed and thrown to the voters.
Chuck Schumer will be begging Democrats to pass it through by Wednesday. He'll say that any debt increase is better than no debt increase.
What a surprise this is. /s
Oh sweet!
Well that get us 1 trillionaire, or will it be divided up so we get 4 trillionaire? Or dare I say, a dozen billionaires...?