10 thoughts on “Yeah, that’s an understatement

  1. Why do we have a debt ceiling then? Is it not a curb to prevent government debt from running completely out of control?

    Is it not the most appropriate time to “pick a fight” and actually address the debt and spending problems when we’re faced with once again running into the statutory limit that the previous Congress established?

    1. Is it not a curb to prevent government debt from running completely out of control?

      No, it isn’t. It was established as a procedural convenience so borrowing wouldn’t have to be approved for every single appropriation. It was never intended to be a circuit breaker.

      1. That answer might have been true back in the 1940s – when we actually REDUCED the debt ceiling at times, but it most certainly has no bearing on the reality of the last 30 years.

        From Congressional Research Service’s report, The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases:

        The debt limit also provides Congress with the strings to control the federal purse, allowing Congress to assert its constitutional prerogatives to control spending. The debt limit also imposes a form of fiscal accountability that compels Congress and the President to take visible action to allow further federal borrowing when the federal government spends more than it collects in revenues. In the words of one author, the debt limit “expresses a national devotion to the idea of thrift and to economical management of the fiscal affairs of the government.”

        1. Oh, bollocks. By that reasoning, appropriations is a systemic check on spiraling debt. And there are laws like Graham Rudman that explicitly require spending controls under deficits that are ignored completely. The debt ceiling was never a check until the teabagger junta decided it wanted it to be.

    2. Locke, where were these same Republicans who are now holding hostage the debt ceiling when it got raised 7 times under Republican George W. Bush?

      Oh, that’s right….they were happily voting in favor of raising the debt ceiling without so much as a peep about getting federal spending under control.

      Wouldn’t it have been appropriate for Republicans to “pick a fight” at any point during President Bush’s two terms, during which time the national debt rose by nearly 300%?

      1. I’ve found the worst myth to be the belief that the debt ceiling imposes any control on government spending. The plain truth is that the debt limit does not affect the deficits or the surpluses; the critical revenue and spending decisions are made during the congressional budget process.”

        Ironically, this idiocy increases the debt with higher interest payments.

        1. Because an assistant in the Bush administration has a leg to stand on in the area of fiscal restraint.

      2. Wouldn’t it have been appropriate for Republicans to “pick a fight” at any point during President Bush’s two terms, during which time the national debt rose by nearly 300%?

        Yup. And any time prior to the last minute. You won’t find me giving them a pass – I was as vocal as anyone at criticizing the spending during the second Bush Administration.

        That said, don’t get me wrong – 95% of what’s going on now is political gamesmanship. A perfect example of the Rahm Emanuel strategy many were so critical of: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” In this case waiting until the last minute actually creates the very crisis they’re trying to take advantage of.

        What’s so funny about this is the disdain you guys have for the tea party. A portion of those folks – especially early on – were primarily motivated on holding the Republicans feet to the fire on talking the talk but not walking the walk on fiscal restraint.

        1. primarily motivated on holding the Republicans feet to the fire on talking the talk but not walking the walk

          This is exactly the role Hezbollah plays in Lebanese politics.

Comments are closed.