Purely from an economics perspective much of the talk around supply side economics out of the house this year compared to last year is pure lies.
Supply side economics till last year was a set of capital policies.
Supply side economics is not an industrial policy. That is where the little liars have gone hog wild.
Plus if it were the econ of our day inflation would rise substantially.
McCarthyâs proposal will not pass the Senate, and would get vetoâd. But if McCarthy compromises he loses his job. I see only one way we do not default, and that is a handful of reasonable House Republicans join with Democrats to pass a debt limit increase. I see the odds of this reasonable. By that I mean 50/50 chance of a default. Which is far from ideal!
Or if a handful of Democrats join with Senate Republicans to pass a debt limit increase. Hopefully theyâll go for a two-year extension rather than a one-year.
DB2
A reasonable compromise, wherein both sides give a little to get what is good for the country, would be a pleasant change of pace.
Cheers!
Murph
There will not be a default. There will not be a cut in defense spending. The Shiny faction is trying to force the government to stop paying any sort of welfare. The government could act like the Shinier JCs I worked for, and cut pay for itâs own workers, but that would not be enough. Federal payroll is apparently only about $22M/month, or $264M/yr, nothing against the $1T/year deficits Shiny-land supply-sided itâs way into.
A number of years ago, I saw a video of a conference hosted by the Concord Coalition. One of the panelists said he had a discussion with one of the ardent supply-siders. He said the supply side plan is to run the deficits up, until there is a crisis, then shrug and tell retirees they canât pay SS and Medicare anymore, and leave it at that.
So, what happens if all welfare spending is eliminated? The drumbeat will start anew, for more tax cuts for the âJCsâ.
Steve
There should be no giving. There should NOT be such a thing as a limit for paying our debts.
But there could probably be a limit on incurring them. But thatâs what congress is supposed to negotiate during legislation.
Like the electoral college, the debt payment limit is an artifact of the past. Although I think that one party seems to think we should return to some sort of idealized past.
That hasnât worked since the late 90s. Pay-go rules probably hasnât been tried since then, because they did work. Remember âpay-goâ rules? That is where the rule says âYou want to throw another $1T at the âJCsâ? Ok. Show us specific revenue increases and spending cuts to pay for it. No faith-based drivel the deficit will magically go away by itselfâ.
Steve
I would like to see someone challenge the constitutionality of the debt ceiling law.
Congress has already legally authorized the spending.
And the Constitution states:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
The time to discuss fiscal concerns about the spending of money is when you are deciding what to authorize spending money on, not when it comes time for paying it.
The debt ceiling is utter nonsense.
I am rarely this surprised, or impressed. This was kept way more secret that I would have ever credited them. Bravo.
Snip:
In a letter to fellow Democrats, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) outlined that strategy, revealing that the legislative vehicle Democrats intend to use was introduced in January â very quietly and without any fanfare â by Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.). And on Tuesday, during a pro forma session of the House, Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.), the senior Democrat on the Rules Committee, introduced a âspecial ruleâ designed to guide that bill to the floor if the discharge petition is successful.
This has been planned and kept secret since January, impressive! Reminds me of the rope a dope they pulled last year on the Inflation Reduction Act.
After years since Gingrich launched the GOP running this utterly shameless hostage taking shakedown backed by transparent lies and falsehoods it would be reasonable and even gracious if all the Dems did was kick the GOP hard in crotch by Biden simply announcing the debt limit as unconstitutional and no longer in force.
Throw the hot potato to the Supreme Court. There would be delightful amount of shrieking and screaming.
david fb
âNo debt ceiling.â
At least the debt ceiling puts some notice on deficit spending. Which should get our attention.
A balanced budget most of the time should be required. Previously accumulated debt is another issue. Probably addressed by inflation.
I think it would be horrible for the country. It is like saying yeah we need a web of infrastructure for a build out. The government budget offices have measured it all out but lets have 20% less infrastructure? That pretty much might mean 2% less GDP growth each year for the next decade. Why? So a few people who know nothing at all about econ, proven for the last 40 years, can claim a victory?
When in fact if the Republicans had full control the debt limit would be lifted. But the debt would not be for building our nation but instead for a tax cut. Shrinking our nation would be that option.
BTW if we want peace and quiet that should come with some people stopping the endless lying.
Not aimed at you personally NeuromancerâŚthe same parties in congress calling for a limit on the debt have always supported much higher debt limits when they had full power in the Senate and WH.
If you think this is an honest battle youâd be wrong or very naive. The bluster in Congress does not mean anyone in Congress saying these things has an honest bone in their bodies.
Iâm sorry Leap, but when the shoe was on the other foot years ago, Biden had no problem taking the same stance the Republicans are taking right now.
Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does.
Cheers!
Murph
Murph,
When was that? Iâd like to know more about that. But was it his sort of compromise solutions forged with McCain and Lieberman? Because those were compromise efforts not absolutes. Those were for priming the pump in congress for other actions. Those were NOT the results. Voting in a congressional body for things that wont happen does not always count as a position even. Things are said and done for other reasons.
adding
If you are talking about the sequester that was about a big compromise that I also supported. There were reasons for that. We were in between supply side econ and demand side econ. We needed the status quo.
Here you are Leap:
Debt ceiling: Biden voted against it himself as a US Senator (bgr.com)
PolitiFact | Fact-checking Bidenâs claim that raising debt limit is usually bipartisan
Please, no alibis and excuses for Biden. He is a political animal as they come, as in: âHi There, my name is Joe Biden. and if you make it worth my while, Iâll change it.â
He was/is a prime case of the need for term limits to rid ourselves of âprofessional politiciansâ of both parties!
Cheers!
Murph
(who notes that the internet is a marvelous resource; all one has to do is google/search)
Murph,
Thanks for giving me the smidgeon of truth about this entire Biden thing.
My only comment is that McConnell is both a useful ejit and looking to be followed by useful ejitsâŚpresent company excluded because we here have the time to discuss reality.
âIt is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.â - Biden 2006
McConnel today
McConnell was quick to point out the irony in his letter to President Biden on Monday.
âYou explained on the Senate floor that your ânoâ votes did not mean you wanted the majority to let the country default, but rather that the Presidentâs party had to take responsibility for a policy agenda which you opposed,â McConnell wrote. âYour view then is our view now.â
Policymakers enacted the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts with the promise that they would âpay for themselvesâ by delivering increased economic growth, which would generate higher tax revenues.[11] But even President Bushâs Treasury Department estimated that under the most optimistic scenario, the tax cuts would at best pay for less than 10 percent of their long-term cost with increased growth.[12]
Evidence suggests that the tax cuts â particularly those for high-income households â did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.[13]
In fact, the economic expansion that lasted from 2001 to 2007 was weaker than average. A review of economic evidence on the tax cuts by Brookings Institution economist William Gale and Dartmouth professor Andrew Samwick, former chief economist on George W. Bushâs Council of Economic Advisers, found that âa cursory look at growth between 2001 and 2007 (before the onset of the Great Recession) suggests that overall growth rate was ⌠mediocreâ and that âthere is, in short, no first-order evidence in the aggregate data that these tax cuts generated growth.â[14]
As to this, Leap, just substitute Bidenâs name for âsome peopleâ and we agree. Sure, most politicians lieâŚbut I am 76 years old and have never seen such constant disregard for the truth by an elected PresidentâŚas verified by FACTS after the liesâŚsometimes by his own staff.
Your mileage may vary.
Cheers!
Murph
(yes Trump told lies too)
I have never heard Biden tell a lie.
But then again I do not watch Fox. People get very stirred up and angry watching fox. I could get angry watching it as well but for different reasons.
If Tucker Carlson has said Biden is a liar how can I argue with you Murph?
Murph,
Supply side econ was always to simplistic to be real. Supply side econ is not actually economics. Those simplistic answers in the ideology do not face any lies just because actual economics are discussed in their complexity.