The GOP is Blocking the Ability to Pay for Their Own Debts

1. 77

   Valeantposted 3 years ago

   
   
   Democrats have the votes to raise the debt ceiling with a straight up and down vote.  The GOP chose to filibuster the ability to raise it.  This is not about future spending, this is about paying for the debts already incurred, including the $7.8 trillion added while they had control of government. 
   
   In essence, they are preventing the raise that would pay for their own previous spending.  At this point, the GOP is trying to hurt the recovery from the pandemic by playing politics with the economy.
   
   There is the difference between the parties.  The Democrats set aside politics on this issue during the Trump term, raising it three times.  One party puts the good of the country ahead of politics.  The other is willing to cause harm for power - actually for stupidity.
   
   I do hope this causes the end of the filibuster.  On one hand McConnell says the Democrats should raise it themselves.  Then on the other, McConnell uses the filibuster to prevent them from doing just that.  At that point, this is the GOP trying to actively hurt America.  Hopefully, the Senators now see the need to take away this ability from the GOP if they are going to use it in such a reckless manner.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, there is a vast difference between the parties.  One holds the nation's infrastructure as hostage while it campaigns for a multi-trillion dollar increase in useless and wasteful spending;  causing harm for power - actually stupidity.
      
      One spreads illegal aliens throughout the country and creates "safe zones" for more illegal aliens, causing harm for power - actually stupidity.
      
      One allows burning of our cities without attempts to stop it, causing harm for power - actually stupidity.
      
      One spends money like water in an effort to dig up dirt on our President, causing harm for power - actually stupidity.
      
      And the really comical part is that this business of refusing to raise the debt ceiling has been going on for years and years, with most years running into the same problem.  An inability, or unwillingness, for either party to control its spending.  But suddenly (as happens most years) only one party is responsible for all of it.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Climate change is not useless unless you are uneducated on the topic.
         
         'Spreading illegals' is a racist term for allowing asylum claims.
         
         No one allowed the burning of cities, that's just a lie.
         
         The Mueller investigation actually made a profit, another blatant lie.
         
         And the really comical part is that the GOP only refuses to raise the debt ceiling when a Democrat is in office, after their party has run the government so badly that budgets need to be raised to recover from their mismanagement.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Illegally crossing the border, and being called on it, is racist?  You have a very, very strange definition of what "racist" means.
            
            For sure, Portland immediately stopped the burning when it happened...or at least months later, when it died down for the winter season anyway.  Now, you can claim that Portland took immediate, effective action to stop the riots but everyone in the country knows better (including, I'm sure, you).

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, because it's not illegal to claim asylum - so you calling them illegals just because they are from other countries is pretty damned racist. 
               
               So now it's Portland that didn't immediately stop the burning of cities.  Just before it was the Democratic party that allowed it.  Which is it, you don't even sound sure that you know.  And you know what happened when Trump sent his people in, the rioting got worse.  So yeah, he didn't stop it either, he added to it.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  You really DO have a different definition for "racist".  You should check a dictionary; "racist" has nothing to do with illegal actions, only the race of the criminal.  Which I never mentioned.
                  
                  Did Trump "add" to the burning of federal buildings?  He wasn't allowed to do any more; did he add to that specific threat that he was there to protect?  Or did he prevent it from happening?

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     You didn't need to mention it, it was implied with who you were referencing by falsely claiming that those seeking asylum are illegal. 
                     
                     The rioting was abating when Trump sent in troops and poured gasoline on the situation.
                     
                     https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … nd/614635/
                     
                     https://www.npr.org/2020/07/19/89282685 … d-protests
                     
                     https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 … nder-trump
                     
                     https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc … -to-police

                     replyreport
   2. 82

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Why do you think this instance is any different from past Democrat votes to block raising the limit?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         And when did Democrats vote to block raising the limit, as you claim?  I did a quick search, but could not find those results.
         
         And do you not see any issue with blocking the payment of past debts as a means of protest for potential future spending that pays for itself without adding more debt to the country?
         
         The 'we will default on our loans because you want to raise taxes back to moderate levels that the country had during a six-year period of decent economic and job growth' argument really makes very little sense.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You will have to look for the specifics yourself but in my brief look-around the years 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007(?) were mentioned as years when the Democrats voted against raising the limit.
            
            As for your thought about blocking past debts, look for Sen. Biden's 2006 explanation then appears the same as McConnel's stated reason now.
            
            It looks like both sides are selling a spotted cow and you are just arguing about the number of spots on the cow that make yours different.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 91

               IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Partisan posturing between the parties over the debt isn’t unusual. But what is unusual this time is that Republicans are going further than the minority party has in the past by using the filibuster to force the Democrats to increase the debt limit.
               
               Democrats did not filibuster debt limit increases in 2003, 2004 and 2006, allowing Senate Republicans to raise the debt limit with a simple majority, said Andrew Carothers, a research analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
               
               https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … imit-usua/

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  True, using the filibuster is an added stop not taken previously as McConnell even notes when he quotes Biden in 2006 when he says the Republicans had to vote to do it alone - something the Democrats are more than willing to do, but McConnell is now setting a new precedent on.
                  
                  GA - the ball's back in your court.  Care to explain why else to block the Democrats from being able to do this so simply?

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     I wouldn't think you need more than Sen. Biden's 2006 words to answer your question.
                     
                     It appears the historical record shows that both parties know the limits will be raised, ( as Sen. Biden stated), and their blocking efforts are just political theater. And the complaint that their opponent isn't playing by the rules just sounds like whining.
                     
                     It is difficult to view your charges as having any more substance than just rationalizations of why what they are doing is worse than what you did.
                     
                     I have little doubt that if the table was turned you would be supporting your party's actions as legit.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Perhaps. 
                        
                        Did Biden lie to the American public when he made his case for opposing the debt ceiling being raised?  Let's go over the lies McConnell was feeding the American public on this topic:
                        
                        1.)  He said that Democrats could raise the ceiling if they wanted as he then used the filibuster to block their ability to do just that.  Democrats have zero doubts that a few Senators would have blown up the reconciliation process during the spend-a-rama phase as a few publicly admitted they would do just that.
                        2.)  He says the block of the debt ceiling was to prevent Democrats from spending in the future, when in actuality the debt ceiling needs to be raised to pay for previous debts.
                        3.)  Along those lines, he continues to say the Democrats are big spenders when his own party mismanages the debt to the tune of $7.8 trillion over just four years.
                        4.)  He falsely tries to convince his followers that the Infrastructure and Social Safety Net bills will add debt when they have provisions to pay for themselves by moving the tax rate back to levels when the country had solid growth.
                        
                        Look, I would support policy to limit adding more debt to the nation.  I'm still not sure why we don't have a balanced budget law to address added debt instead of trying to force a default.  But if you're going to support such blatant lying from McConnell on this topic, we won't see eye-to-eye on the issue.

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           Nope, let's not "go over" any of the details, whether they be lies, facts, or opinions. At least, not until we can find some consensus on a basic starting point.
                           
                           In my view, in each of the past instances of debt ceiling battles, the majority party makes claims that the minority is, in various words and phrasing, unamerican, and the minority party, also in various words and phrases, unleashes claims of anti-liberty anti-Republic behavior against the majority.
                           
                           Over and over, with the only difference being the switching of majority and minority party names.
                           
                           I think that is the point that should first be settled before attempting to judge any pro or con argument. Do you disagree? Do you disagree with my view of all previous debt limit battles?
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              I do.  In 2003, Biden voted down a larger increase to the debt limit, but later in the same day voted for a smaller one.
                              
                              Biden in 2006:  "Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase."
                              
                              Do you see any party's name in that statement?  Sounds pretty general to me.
                              
                              McConnell's lies were pretty specific and false.  Something you just tried to brush off without even acknowledging.

                              replyreport
                              1. 82

                                 GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Nope, I didn't brush off anything. I simply didn't address it because there is a more basic place to start.
                                 
                                 I don't see any path for us to follow. You disagree that both parties have engaged in this ritual. Because it is easy, (at least I think it is easy), to find historical proof that both parties have done this I disagree with your disagreement. So there we are, we disagree on a basic premise so there is surely no ground for us to stand and talk about the details that you want to talk about.
                                 
                                 I think there is also historical proof that both sides have used each others' argument, (sometimes not verbatim, but with the same message, ie. Sen. Biden's 2006 explanation), depending on whether they were the majority or minority. Yet you disagree. So in another instance, there is no path for us to get to whose details are true or false or are just political rhetoric.
                                 
                                 Even though I also didn't assign party names, (my reference was to Majority and Minority parties), it stumps me that you deny that both parties have obstructed this process in the past, so I guess we will just leave things where they are.
                                 
                                 The ball isn't in my court anymore Valeant. we never reached a point where we are on the same court.
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 77

                                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                    '...it stumps me that you deny that both parties have obstructed this process in the past.'
                                    
                                    I guess I don't see a choice not to vote along as the debt ceiling surely gets passed as obstructing it.  Whereas using the filibuster to raise the standard to a level where it can't be passed as two different definitions of what constitutes obstructing something.
                                    
                                    You're right, what we constitute as actually leading to obstructing a raise  in the debt ceiling makes us seem like we are comparing apples and oranges.

                                    replyreport
               2. 82

                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi there Islandmom. I see the Republican move as just politics. A detail that doesn't change the fact that both parties have tried to block the move.
                  
                  I don't see the Republican threat to fillibuster as any different from Democrat tactics, (such as their use of the reconciliation path to pass what they want). In the end, both efforts demand compromise. I see in today's news that McConnel has offered possible compromise paths.
                  
                  My point is that both parties did and will do it, and these claims by Democrats against Republicans are no different than what they themselves have done and Republicans bashed them for.
                  
                  I am hearing these Democrat bashings as hypocritical complaints that don't reflect well on those that express them. On this issue, I think their hands are as dirty as the ones they are complaining about.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
2. 81

   Credence2posted 2 years ago

   Republicans say "the country be damned". A case for disgusting hypocrisy and partisanship, a low that Democrats did not descend to during the Trump regime.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Does your logic apply to past Democrat "no" votes concerning raising the debt ceiling?
      
      Of course, this is a hot talking point among Republicans but does that fact change the issue that apparently* Sen. Biden gave the same reasons then as McConnel is giving now?
      * I didn't dig any deeper so maybe Sen. Biden and other Democrat no votes weren't for the reason Biden stated.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Fair enough, what is good for the goose....
         
         I have to see specifically when and why the Democrats refused to raise the debt limit. It would have seemed inappropriate in the aftermath of 9-11.

         replyreport
   2. 71

      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      
      Trump added 8 Trillion in debt (4 years)...
      
      Just $676 Billion added under Biden (8 months)...
      
      By not [adding Trillions more in debt] Mitch McConnel is refusing to pay the debts he rang up with Trump.
      
      And they spout such garbage out to the public every day, and a certain percentage of it laps it up.
      
      You can fool some of the people all of the time, and that is the percentage that allows you to get away with corruption and criminal activity while calling it Democracy and Government.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         +100000000000

         replyreport
      2. 77

         Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Not sure someone who buys into the big lie of election 'fraud' should consider themselves a good judge of knowing when anyone is being fooled.

         replyreport
3. 77

   Valeantposted 2 years ago

   The rules of reconciliation would also require Democrats to raise the debt limit to a specific dollar figure, instead of simply suspending it, giving Republicans a campaign attack line.
   
   This whole thing is about giving the GOP something to campaign with.   When we say McConnell is doing this for politics, this is what we mean.  He is willing to jeopardize the economy for a campaign slogan.

   replyreport