Lawrence Tribe's Change of Mind on the Debt Limit

[Elixir]

There is really nothing they could do other than go along with Biden or fume.

That is precisely what I have been contemplating, but if it was that simple I'd think there would be an ultimatum out there. Maybe there is, or maybe there are other factors that make it not that simple.

I don't think that House Republican incumbents want to be running on their failure to raise the debt ceiling after a failed blackmail attempt to get Biden to adopt their legislative goals.

They're more than hip deep already. Signing off on anything remotely reasonable would be seen as capitulation by his rabid ratpack. Just ONE of them can call for his removal. Soooo McC might calculate that he should take his chances and if everything burns, hopefully he can blame it on Biden. He will have to bring something to a vote obviously, or be seen as utterly inept. After all, there are probably more MAGAts out there than very well informed Republicans.
So, back to A14 ... I don't hear as much chatter about it as I would expect if it were a foregone conclusion.

 

[Copernicus]

They're more than hip deep already. Signing off on anything remotely reasonable would be seen as capitulation by his rabid ratpack. Just ONE of them can call for his removal. Soooo McC might calculate that he should take his chances and if everything burns, hopefully he can blame it on Biden. He will have to bring something to a vote obviously, or be seen as utterly inept. After all, there are probably more MAGAts out there than very well informed Republicans.

Whatever path McCarthy takes, I think we can rely on him to take the one that requires the least amount of courage.

 

[laughing dog]

I think Biden should call the GOP’s bluff on the basis the House of Representatives is reneging on its spending bills.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They're more than hip deep already. Signing off on anything remotely reasonable would be seen as capitulation by his rabid ratpack. Just ONE of them can call for his removal. Soooo McC might calculate that he should take his chances and if everything burns, hopefully he can blame it on Biden. He will have to bring something to a vote obviously, or be seen as utterly inept. After all, there are probably more MAGAts out there than very well informed Republicans.

Whatever path McCarthy takes, I think we can rely on him to take the one that requires the least amount of courage.

Which path is that? I think each possible action at this point lacks courage. If he tried to pass a debt ceiling hike, he could be removed from the Speaker position.

 

[Elixir]

Which path is that? I think each possible action at this point lacks courage. If he tried to pass a debt ceiling hike, he could be removed from the Speaker position.

Zackly. I think he will stake out the high moral ground called "I dindunuffin!" and let America default (if Biden can't steer the ship any better than that, as his treason caucus will charge). That's what the nutbars want, and they're in charge.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

For all of the posturing over the debt ceiling, it's easy to forget that a statutory limit to federal borrowing isn't the real issue; the real problem is that the federal government habitually spends more money than it brings in.

 

[Copernicus]

For all of the posturing over the debt ceiling, it's easy to forget that a statutory limit to federal borrowing isn't the real issue; the real problem is that the federal government habitually spends more money than it brings in.

No, the statutory limit to federal borrowing is the real issue. It has been in place for decades, but the government still habitually spends more than it brings in. Without the debt limit, there would be no posturing over whether to pay our bills. We would simply pay them and borrow the money to cover insufficient revenues--same as we've been doing for all the years that the debt limit has been being raised by all Congresses since they passed the boneheaded law. Until now, our credit has been good--better than that of any other country. The House Republicans are working hard to change that earned reputation.

 

[laughing dog]

For all of the posturing over the debt ceiling, it's easy to forget that a statutory limit to federal borrowing isn't the real issue; the real problem is that the federal government habitually spends more money than it brings in.

No, the statutory limit to federal borrowing is the real issue. It has been in place for decades, but the government still habitually spends more than it brings in. Without the debt limit, there would be no posturing over whether to pay our bills. We would simply pay them and borrow the money to cover insufficient revenues--same as we've been doing for all the years that the debt limit has been being raised by all Congresses since they passed the boneheaded law. Until now, our credit has been good--better than that of any other country. The House Republicans are working hard to change that earned reputation.

I think Jason has a point. After all, if the federal gov't had a balanced budget or a surplus, this charade would be unnecessary. I agree that those outcomes are unrealistic in this age as well as moot. But then again, it is also unrealistic as well as moot to expect the current GOP in the House to put the country and integrity ahead of partisan boneheadedness.

 

[bilby]

if the federal gov't had a balanced budget or a surplus

...the US economy would be in the shitter.

Austerity economics is batshit insane.

Every time it's been tried, it's led to economic ruin.

Deficits cause spending cuts, causing a collapse of revenues, causing more deficits, leading to more spending cuts...

Meanwhile unemployment or inflation (or both) soar, while GDP and infrastructure collapses.

For fucks sake, will people stop trying to pretend that a fiat money issuing government can pretend to budget like a household or a business?

It doesn't work like that; It has never worked like that; and there are oodles of examples of people trying and failing.

Trying something that has repeatedly been an abject failure, on the basis of some incredibly simplistic analogy with something that isn't even vaguely analogous might make people feel briefly less stupid for not understanding jack-shit about economics, but that dubious benefit is not worth the massive suffering that inevitably ensues.

If you're in any doubt, ask the British Conservative Party. They have been totally fucking their national economy for a while now.

 

[Copernicus]

I think Jason has a point. After all, if the federal gov't had a balanced budget or a surplus, this charade would be unnecessary. I agree that those outcomes are unrealistic in this age as well as moot. But then again, it is also unrealistic as well as moot to expect the current GOP in the House to put the country and integrity ahead of partisan boneheadedness.

The point is that microeconomics (household and business budgets) are different from microeconomics (national economies). Households don't print their own currency or regulate markets, among other things. As bilby pointed out, there are very good reasons why the government should not stop borrowing or should not develop a surplus, because a great deal of commerce depends on the need to spend, borrow, and save money in a secure way in order to guarantee healthy economic growth. When Clinton's administration started to approach a balanced budget, they actually worried about the harm that would cause. Inflation can be bad, but modest inflation is actually a good thing. Stagnation and/or deflation can be devastating, because people save money instead of spending it. Hence, businesses fail, because people stop using their money to buy the products that businesses produce.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm still waiting for those economic booms that pay off the tax cuts with mega interest.

 

[laughing dog]

I think Jason has a point. After all, if the federal gov't had a balanced budget or a surplus, this charade would be unnecessary. I agree that those outcomes are unrealistic in this age as well as moot. But then again, it is also unrealistic as well as moot to expect the current GOP in the House to put the country and integrity ahead of partisan boneheadedness.

The point is that microeconomics (household and business budgets) are different from microeconomics (national economies). Households don't print their own currency or regulate markets, among other things. As bilby pointed out, there are very good reasons why the government should not stop borrowing or should not develop a surplus, because a great deal of commerce depends on the need to spend, borrow, and save money in a secure way in order to guarantee healthy economic growth. When Clinton's administration started to approach a balanced budget, they actually worried about the harm that would cause. Inflation can be bad, but modest inflation is actually a good thing. Stagnation and/or deflation can be devastating, because people save money instead of spending it. Hence, businesses fail, because people stop using their money to buy the products that businesses produce.

Which is why I said it was unrealistic.

I have been a professional economist for over 40 years. I am well aware of the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics.

I recall that during the Clinton administration, the Federal Reserve officials started thinking and discussing about how monetary policy would be conducted in the absence of Treasury bonds if the federal debt was retired!

I do agree that a plan to reduce spending and the deficit just to reduce the deficit or debt causes unnecessary economic distress, especially at this time.

Commerce requires liquidity. Liquidity does not require gov't borrowing as quantitative easing demonstrated. Gov't borrowing and the issuance of debt can be beneficial or harmful. But there is nothing sacrosanct about the need for gov't borrowing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For all of the posturing over the debt ceiling, it's easy to forget that a statutory limit to federal borrowing isn't the real issue; the real problem is that the federal government habitually spends more money than it brings in.

How is the view from the pedestal these days? Yes, neither party has balanced the budget. Pointing this out, however, is particularly helpful. For 30 years, the GOP has been cutting taxes and reducing income to the Government, all the while not addressing the mandatory spending programs which we knew were going up and military spending increases that they have been in great support of. The time to address this was decades ago now. The GOP wanted to partially private Social Security and that was about it. The Democrats haven't been afraid to return higher tax thresholds back to higher levels (though no where near where they were).

So now, we have mandatory spending doing exactly what was predicted, one party not doing anything but starving the beast and the other party really stuck between the propaganda of the right-wing and policies that increase government spending. And of course, you on the pedestal, complaining and not being involved.

 

[Elixir]

For all of the posturing over the debt ceiling, it's easy to forget that a statutory limit to federal borrowing isn't the real issue; the real problem is that the federal government habitually spends more money than it brings in.

How is the view from the pedestal these days? Yes, neither party has balanced the budget. Pointing this out, however, is particularly helpful. For 30 years, the GOP has been cutting taxes and reducing income to the Government, all the while not addressing the mandatory spending programs which we knew were going up and military spending increases that they have been in great support of. The time to address this was decades ago now. The GOP wanted to partially private Social Security and that was about it. The Democrats haven't been afraid to return higher tax thresholds back to higher levels (though no where near where they were).

So now, we have mandatory spending doing exactly what was predicted, one party not doing anything but starving the beast and the other party really stuck between the propaganda of the right-wing and policies that increase government spending. And of course, you on the pedestal, complaining and not being involved.

Ironically, it’s Republicans who always run up the debt and deficit, then clutch their pearls when Dems come into power and declare the need for austerity (except for their donor class).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For all of the posturing over the debt ceiling, it's easy to forget that a statutory limit to federal borrowing isn't the real issue; the real problem is that the federal government habitually spends more money than it brings in.

How is the view from the pedestal these days? Yes, neither party has balanced the budget. Pointing this out, however, is particularly helpful. For 30 years, the GOP has been cutting taxes and reducing income to the Government, all the while not addressing the mandatory spending programs which we knew were going up and military spending increases that they have been in great support of. The time to address this was decades ago now. The GOP wanted to partially private Social Security and that was about it. The Democrats haven't been afraid to return higher tax thresholds back to higher levels (though no where near where they were).

So now, we have mandatory spending doing exactly what was predicted, one party not doing anything but starving the beast and the other party really stuck between the propaganda of the right-wing and policies that increase government spending. And of course, you on the pedestal, complaining and not being involved.

Ironically, it’s Republicans who always run up the debt and deficit, then clutch their pearls when Dems come into power and declare the need for austerity (except for their donor class).

But Jason isn't a Republican. He is a pedestal viewing Libertarian. He mistakeningly believes holding untenable ideals somehow can solve problems.

 

[Elixir]

But Jason isn't a Republican. He is a pedestal viewing Libertarian.

Nice thing about that - libberpublicans never identify with whatever party is in power, and so remain blameless no matter what happens.
That they are also irrelevant doesn’t seem to bother them, as long as they can preach to and look down upon those who are actually doing the work.

 

[Rhea]

But Jason isn't a Republican. He is a pedestal viewing Libertarian.

Nice thing about that - libberpublicans never identify with whatever party is in power, and so remain blameless no matter what happens.
That they are also irrelevant doesn’t seem to bother them, as long as they can preach to and look down upon those who are actually doing the work.

Interestingly, this is how I would describe Bernie Sanders, as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But Jason isn't a Republican. He is a pedestal viewing Libertarian.

Nice thing about that - libberpublicans never identify with whatever party is in power, and so remain blameless no matter what happens.
That they are also irrelevant doesn’t seem to bother them, as long as they can preach to and look down upon those who are actually doing the work.

Interestingly, this is how I would describe Bernie Sanders, as well.

But at least he votes. Indeed, Sanders is a bit of an empty shell, but he does have a sense of pragmatism. He didn't pull a Buchanan and try to sabotage Clinton in 2016. He is working within the system... at least a little bit.

 

[ZiprHead]

But Jason isn't a Republican. He is a pedestal viewing Libertarian.

Nice thing about that - libberpublicans never identify with whatever party is in power, and so remain blameless no matter what happens.
That they are also irrelevant doesn’t seem to bother them, as long as they can preach to and look down upon those who are actually doing the work.

Interestingly, this is how I would describe Bernie Sanders, as well.

But at least he votes. Indeed, Sanders is a bit of an empty shell, but he does have a sense of pragmatism. He didn't pull a Buchanan and try to sabotage Clinton in 2016. He is working within the system... at least a little bit.

Agreed. He does put in the work.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

if the federal gov't had a balanced budget or a surplus

...the US economy would be in the shitter.

Wrong. It is in the shitter now.

Austerity economics is batshit insane.

Every time it's been tried, it's led to economic ruin.

I'm sure you have examples of that ... not.

For fucks sake, will people stop trying to pretend that a fiat money issuing government can pretend to budget like a household or a business?

Even governments can't be irresponsible forever. There is no Magic Money Tree.

It doesn't work like that; It has never worked like that; and there are oodles of examples of people trying and failing.

Every developed country on the Earth has been some varying degree of Keynesian for over a century.

Trying something that has repeatedly been an abject failure, on the basis of some incredibly simplistic analogy with something that isn't even vaguely analogous might make people feel briefly less stupid for not understanding jack-shit about economics, but that dubious benefit is not worth the massive suffering that inevitably ensues.

So we both say Socialism is idiotic and that socialists don't understand jack-shit about economics.

If you're in any doubt, ask the British Conservative Party. They have been totally fucking their national economy for a while now.

That is your example? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!