Debt Ceiling Stand Off? January 19, 2023

originally posted by: InachMarbank
As the US Gov and Treasury is a concern, which protects financially, the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, mostly through programs like the Armed Forces, Medicare, and Social Security, it is inevitable in our current monetary system, this will require deficit spending. As they usually spend more than their revenue, their debt grows. The debt's growth tends to accelerate over long periods of multiple decades.

I would argue the suggestion that the US Government and Treasury has any real interest in protecting the poorest and most vulnerable Americans beyond lip service. They have plans for Continuity of Government in case of disaster, but not for Continuity of the People. Medicare and Social Security were billed as self-sustaining when sold to the American public. Taxpayers pay into them, taxpayers benefit from them. Theoretically they could be, so we should wonder why they aren't.

As far as the Armed Forces is concerned, our defense spending would be a fraction of what it is if we didn't have bases all over the world to attack and defend other countries, not to mention what we spend spying on Americans. Protect our borders, coastline, and airspace, and let other countries protect theirs on their own dime.

originally posted by: InachMarbank

"A senior White House official told CNBC the Biden administration plans to pursue negotiations in earnest with Congress after the mid-April tax deadline."

Based on Biden's past performance, I wouldn't trust his promise to negotiate anything in good faith unless he has no choice.

originally posted by: InachMarbank

Realistically, it is not politically acceptable for the US Gov to operate on a balanced budget, because that would open up the vulnerabilities of the nation's poorest people.

It is not financially acceptable for the US Gov to default on its debt.

So the most likely path seems to be to go into further debt. This path eventually leads to more inflation which eventually becomes politically unacceptable because it opens up vulnerabilities to the nation's poorest.

Is McCarthy being a blowhard with his calls for spending cuts to balance the budget? Will Congress continue to kick the can down the road as usual? Or will the US Gov finally default?

Financially unacceptable is for a nation as wealthy as the US to borrow money at interest from bankers who don't have the money to start with. Do the math, the debt can never be repaid. And it just keeps growing larger because we have to "borrow" more money to pay off what we borrowed before.

The only way out is to stop borrowing money from the Federal Reserve and issue our own currency. The US had a balanced budget before. That was when Andrew Jackson got rid of the central bank. Since the Federal Reserve Bank took over the currency, we have always had deficits, always had inflation, and the nation's poorest have always suffered because of it.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I just looked up some stats reporting the administrative costs for social security in 2021 were about $6.5 billion. The total paid in 2022 was $1.2 trillion. The total received in 2022 was $1.1 trillion.

There doesn't seem to be that much difference in the relative population of baby boomers, gen x'ers, millenials, and generation z.

The armed forces pay the salaries of many young men who might have otherwise wound up disenfranchised, yes? Then they offer to pay for their education after their service. And they even help them qualify for mortgages. That's quite a safety net for poor young men isn't it?

And if the House GOP doesn't bend in their demands for spending cuts, does Biden have a choice? Or does he ramp up political attacks, vilify the GOP, and force them to back down? Let's see...

"The beginnings of the banking industry can be traced to 1780 when the Bank of Pennsylvania was founded to fund the American Revolutionary War. After merchants in the Thirteen Colonies needed a currency as a medium of exchange, the Bank of North America was opened to facilitate more advanced financial transactions."

Are you suggesting the gov should takeover the banking industry? Would they issue loans at 0% interest? Would they have to raise taxes to expand their business operations, or could they just change some of their existing operations from what they are now to banking without increasing spending? In any case, that sure seems like quite an undertaking!

originally posted by: InachMarbank
Here's an article with a bit more specifics about proposed House spending cuts:

www.politico.com...

"slashing federal spending by at least $130 billion from the $1.7 trillion government funding package without cutting defense, which passed in December (about 7.6%).

Capping spending at 2022 levels.

Those House GOP demands could set the stage for a government shutdown, unless conservatives relent or enough moderate Democrats come to other Republicans’ rescue.

Republicans say they won’t back a debt limit increase unless they get their way on spending cuts or measures to reign in the ever-increasing $31 trillion debt."

Let's see...

1.21.2023 Update

Donald Trump warns and advises House GOP, regarding the big Budget Deficit fight they're having with Democrats.

MUST READ – (former) President Trump Warns Congress Not to Touch Social Security and Medicare, for a Good Reason. He’s The One Who Can Fix Them.

President Trump transmitted a video message to congress this week, warning them not to cut Social Security and Medicare [Direct Rumble Link].

Many politicians and pundits will look at Trump’s position from the perspective of it being a good position to campaign on for older voters, but that’s not the core of his reasoning.

In 2016 CTH was the first place to evaluate the totality of President Trump’s economic policies; specifically, as those policies related to the entitlement programs around Social Security and Medicare.

We outlined how the approach Trump was putting forth and the way he was approaching the issue. In the years that followed, he was right.

He was creating a U.S. economy that could sustain all of the elements the traditional political class were calling “unsustainable.”

Continued at: theconservativetreehouse.com... son-hes-the-one-who-can-fix-them/

a reply to: carewemust

I read that biased article.

Sure, sounds like a cool political slogan, bring back USA's commodity and manufacturing sector.

It is at the expense of the service sector.

Should make little or no difference in regards to balancing the Gov budget.

The article points out 1 victory of lower energy prices in 2019.

The article does not show the accounting as to if Trump's policy pushes, such as steel and aluminum tariffs, were the reason for increased GDP.

GDP almost always increases, BTW.

There was not a balanced budget from 2016 to 2019. The deficit increased from one year to the next. Those deficits were a lot greater than they were from 2004 to 2007.

a reply to: InachMarbank

hasn't been a budget in over 12 years so hard to make any real comment about balanced budgets.

A services economy is a train wreck for the average person, commodities and manufacturing will at least pay a living wage.

Globalism (in regards to the economy) failed if we dont at least start getting some things moved back into the states to be made we will be screwed when it returns to canada, or mexico.

We're getting what we deserve, I guess.

Remember, Americans elected this guy by a larger margin than Barack Obama received!

JOE BIDEN bragged yesterday, "I Increased America's debt more than any prior U.S. President."

Source: gettr.com...

May 30, 2023

Are we going to do this every six month?

As details begin to emerge, many of the House Republicans are furious at Kevin McCarthy for the deal to lift the debt ceiling he has brokered with Joe Biden.

Suddenly, the prior battle and construct of the House Rules Committee is becoming important.

While Kevin McCarthy may have the 218 votes on the floor of the House to pass the deal, he first has to get it out of the House Rules Committee (HRC).

If three Republicans oppose it in the HRC, McCarthy cannot get it to the floor.

Chip Roy and Ralph Norman are on the HRC and oppose the bill. Thomas Massie is also on the HRC but appears to be supporting Kevin McCarthy (lol, because muh principles).

More at: theconservativetreehouse.com... -no/

a reply to: carewemust

The bill made it through the HRC last night. It will most likely be up for debate in the whole House today.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: carewemust

The bill made it through the HRC last night. It will most likely be up for debate in the whole House today.

Means it’s going to pass. They sure love drama.

a reply to: 38181

The question now becomes whether or not the Freedom Caucus moves to have McCarthy stripped of his Speakership.

a reply to: Threadbare

McCarthy is such a master negotiator, he negotiated a bill that more Democrats voted for than Republicans.

If Republicans now move for a no-confidence vote against McCarthy and it actually passes, Chip Roy looks like he was trying to set himself up as the frontrunner in recent days. But I'm sure some old names from January will reemerge to cast their hat in the ring as well.