Bismarck is credited with the quote:
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”.
That notion escapes many #GOP politicians animated only by the desire to deliver tax cuts to those who don’t need them and a refusal to compromise at all costs
From what I’ve heard from the holdouts, their concerns tended to focus on spending, not taxes.
The GOP holdouts would never countenance new taxes. To some degree there approach focuses on reducing taxes resulting in a shortfall enabling them to complain about excessive spending
That’s not how federal financing works, though.
The shortfall has nothing to do with taxes since the president already signed legislation that countenanced this level of taxation, which along with his spending, lead to this shortfall.
Biden already accepted this level of taxation. He put his pen to paper approving it through the CAA… which was passed over GOP objections, mind you.
So at this point the president is demanding power to borrow more because the bill he signed was mathematically unworkable given the level of taxation he accepted alongside his level of spending.
Taxation is not the problem here. It has nothing to do with this dispute.
@volkris. The immediate dispute is whether the budget cap will be raised or not so that the obligations already signed off by both ingress and the President will be met
The GOP has chosen to take this enabling legislation and use it to negotiate a reduction in future spending. There are 2 levers that can be pulled when attempting to achieve a balanced budget. Decrease expenditure and/or increase taxation. The GOP, will only countenance the former, never the latter.
No, I don’t know who you have been listening to, but that’s just not correct.
The current dispute is over the borrowing limit, which has nothing to do with the budget cap. The budget cut was set in legislation passed by the last Congress and signed by the president already.
And you can see that this is not about obligations since the deal worked out with Biden rescinds spending authority. If it was about obligations then that couldn’t happen. The deal they worked out debunks the idea that this is about obligations.
Ok let’s be clear there are 2 elements at play in the recent machinations of congress
1) An agreement as the whether the upper threshold of the national debt will be expanded to meet the current expenditures of the US government
2) The attempted use of that expansion by the House majority to drive reductions in the overall expenditures of the government under highly questionable concerns of balancing the budget
@volkris The drive to reduce expenditures by the #GOP is not driven out of a desire for a balanced budget, rather it is to provide a further reduction in tax obligations for a monied elite who have little real need for a tax cut. Such cuts in turn trigger additional calls for further expenditure reductions as the budget is driven further out of balance. My point here is, I’m highly skeptical of GOP balanced budget concerns. I think it is pure posturing and Kabuki
Your theory doesn’t make mathematical sense.
if the GOP doesn’t desire balanced budgets then they would simply lower those taxes without bothering with spending since they wouldn’t care about the deficits.
The fact that you say there is a drive to reduce expenditures undermines the rest of your theory.
@volkris no you are incorrect, the strategy of the GOP for decades has been to created budgetary crisis. This is not mathematics at work, this is about creating crisis so that the beast can be starved, so that discretionary spending can be eliminated
But the GOP voted against this crisis.
Democrats voted for the Consolidated Appropriations Act that set this budgetary crisis up while Republicans voted against it.
Budgeting and debt ceiling have been managed on 2 separate tracks for decades. We can argue for the merits of that approach. The Democrats voted to expand expenditures, the GOP opposed that effort. They chose to use the management of the debt ceiling to force changes of expenditures. Usually that is a separate negotiation as thoughtful folks traditionally have opted not to threaten the credit standing of the country. In my view, that was reckless and foolish.
According to the civil servants at the Treasury, they were bringing in plenty of revenue to service the debts regardless of the debt ceiling, so no, Republicans did not and could not have threatened the credit standing of the country.
That was all up to the administration. It already had the borrowing power to maintain the credit standing of the country.
But even setting that aside, you’re still brushing right past the way that it was Democrats who set this up. You can talk about how Republicans responded to the situation, but even so, Democrats set up the situation through their legislation and executive action.
Don’t like that Republicans used this situation to press for change? Fine, but let’s be clear that Democrats actively gave them that opportunity. Let’s hold them accountable for it.
Yes, but they declined to expand the federal debt or increase taxes.
For people who wanted a more expanded set of social services it is really striking that they declined to provide any financing for it, which led us to this situation.
Democrats could have and should have provided financing for their priorities, one way or another, but apparently their priorities were not committed enough to actually do that.
@volkris There is what is politically possible at any point in time. This latest negotiation, with #GOP control of the House was never going to result in an increase in taxation, so the alternate route has been taken. This is the nature of the mess that is American politics.
Question you might ask is why the GOP opted not to increase taxes? You have advised that they are supportive of social programs, if so how do you suggest they finance them?
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.