Trump sides with Democrats on debt ceiling, throwing Republican plans into chaos
59 replies, posted
It would be prudent to remember that the President has no say in the crafting of legislation, including the raising of the debt ceiling, which is usually passed with the support of both parties fairly easily anyway. Any 'agreement' the President would enter into with Democratic leadership would hold no weight if the majority party decides not to honor it.
[editline]6th September 2017[/editline]
All that aside, it is a rather unexpected surprise to see the President apparently getting on well with the likes of Chuck Schumer. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't slightly unsettled by the thought of whatever they might have cooked up.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52655500]It would be prudent to remember that the President has no say in the crafting of legislation, including the raising of the debt ceiling, which is usually passed with the support of both parties fairly easily. Any 'agreement' the President would enter into with Democratic leadership would hold no weight if the majority party decides not to honor it.[/QUOTE]
The majority party not honoring Trump's wishes would do them absolutely no favor in the 2018 midterms considering most voters voted for Trump and not the party though
It puts them in a very bad position electorally to have to risk Trump asking his voters to punish them in the midterms which is absolutely not beyond the realms of possibility
Haha, jokes on you guys. Trump is only siding with the Democrats so he can screw over immigrants.
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/votes/349539-dems-rip-leaders-deal-with-trump-for-ignoring-daca[/url]
[QUOTE=Chonch;52655500]It would be prudent to remember that the President has no say in the crafting of legislation, including the raising of the debt ceiling, which is usually passed with the support of both parties fairly easily anyway. Any 'agreement' the President would enter into with Democratic leadership would hold no weight if the majority party decides not to honor it.
[editline]6th September 2017[/editline]
All that aside, it is a rather unexpected surprise to see the President apparently getting on well with the likes of Chuck Schumer. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't slightly unsettled by the thought of whatever they might have cooked up.[/QUOTE]
Republicans who supported this plan now have the cover of Presidential support to vote for it. If they were voting against the Republican party line [I]and[/I] the President was not in support of what they were voting for, that voting record is much more damaging to them. It would make it trivial to paint them as a RINO enabling the Democrats, that feared No True Scotsman smear. And with the 2018 primary season not that far away, incumbent Republicans in election-year seats have a lot to fear about attack ads picking at fresh votes against party lines.
[QUOTE=dark soul;52655629]Haha, jokes on you guys. Trump is only siding with the Democrats so he can screw over immigrants.
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/votes/349539-dems-rip-leaders-deal-with-trump-for-ignoring-daca[/url][/QUOTE]
That's a misleading way to present that story even as it's written and The Hill's blogs are a kinda shit source besides.
Democrats wanted their leadership to use the debt ceiling as a hostage to make Congress adopt DACA. That's no better than the Republicans who wanted to hold the ceiling crisis as a hostage to demand massive spending cuts.
Democratic and Republican Senate leadership is instead trying to do the mature thing and simply push the debt ceiling, funding the government to avert a shutdown in three weeks, and funding disaster relief so FEMA doesn't run out of cash at the end of the week. Neither side is attaching anything massively partisan that they want and instead are focusing on what is [I]needed[/I] to avoid (or at least try and help, in the case of Harvey/Irma) major catastrophes that affect Americans of all political stripes. Trump is backing this effort.
This is called good governance. It's so rare that it's difficult to even recognize, but this is what's supposed to happen. Despite the fact that he came to it in a completely ass-backwards way and could've prevented almost all of it from happening in the first place if he was actually competent at his job, Trump did the right thing today.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52655500]It would be prudent to remember that the President has no say in the crafting of legislation, including the raising of the debt ceiling, which is usually passed with the support of both parties fairly easily anyway. Any 'agreement' the President would enter into with Democratic leadership would hold no weight if the majority party decides not to honor it.
[editline]6th September 2017[/editline]
All that aside, it is a rather unexpected surprise to see the President apparently getting on well with the likes of Chuck Schumer. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't slightly unsettled by the thought of whatever they might have cooked up.[/QUOTE]
Its strongly implied that McConnel and Ryan will throw their support behind this, the two people who actually control the legislative agenda, even after trump has fucked it up twice now with DACA and his incessant demands for thingies to sign
[QUOTE=Sableye;52655891]Its strongly implied that McConnel and Ryan will throw their support behind this, the two people who actually control the legislative agenda, even after trump has fucked it up twice now with DACA and his incessant demands for thingies to sign[/QUOTE]
McConnell is on-board and will be working with Senate Dem leadership to craft the bill and attach it to the Harvey aid bill pretty much ASAP.
What's funny is that only an hour before Trump made his surprise announcement, Ryan had just talked about how the debt limit extension can't just be for three months, it needs to be longer-term. The reason he didn't want a short one is because the 2018 midterms will come into play if Congress has to renegotiate budget concerns within six months. If Ryan goes along with the plan now it reinforces that he's Trump's bellboy.
[editline]also[/editline]
An end-of-year deadline also keeps the budget issue close to the surface and gives Democrats more leverage on Republicans. Basically the Democrats are doing to the Republicans what the Republicans did to Obama by playing games with the government shutdown lever. They aren't threatening to shut the government down if they don't get what they want, they're instead keeping the Republicans on a tight leash to ensure they can get some of what they want when the pressure is not as high as it is right now.
Can't find it in me to feel a shred of empathy for the poor saps getting a taste of their own medicine.
Ahh, the broken clock finally showed the right time![QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52655088]In a world of cups of Polonium-210 tea, this could be more real than we're aware.[/QUOTE]
I hear a refined isotope of Strontium-90 will give you [i]high energy[/i]. And make yer piss glow pretty blue. And the drink, for that matter.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52656062]-Nuka-Cola reference-[/QUOTE]
Do you feel like a funny man now that you've made a joke indirectly about Alexander Litvinenko's agonized death?
Not that I'd mind if Trump suddenly took up drinking radiologically-energetic energy drinks. Maybe he'd live to see his jaw fall off like the rich businessman who swore by the health effects of Radium water and drank over a thousand bottles before it bit him in the ass.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52655098]The US debt ceiling is kinda baffling to me. Congress passes a budget with a deficit. Then they act all surprised when they have to raise the arbitrary debt ceiling, and depending on who's in the white house, they'll call the president fiscally irresponsible for good measure. Am I missing something or is this truly nothing but a pointless merry-go-round?[/QUOTE]
It's too hard to explain how money works so they have to act like it's a terrible thing or otherwise voters will get upset
[QUOTE=Goberfish;52656185]It's too hard to explain how money works so they have to act like it's a terrible thing or otherwise voters will get upset[/QUOTE]
More importantly, it's hard to explain how debt and international currency valuation works.
Just about a month ago, Trump was willing to cause a shutdown if he didn't get funding for his wall. Now, thanks to the hurricane relief efforts, he knows that a shutdown would destroy what's left of his administration. So he's taking the Democrats' bargain to push the issue back a few months so he can play chicken at a more opportune time.
yesterday i was mildly suprised he did something sensable, today i'm pretty sure all his bragging is going to cause a supprise defection of republicans when the actual vote comes up...
[U][B]Trump Reaches Out to Make More Deals With Congressional Democrats[/B][/U]
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/trump-pelosi-daca.html[/url]
[QUOTE]
President Trump pursued his newfound alignment with congressional Democrats on Thursday as [B]he called the party’s leaders in hopes of striking more deals and even complied with a request to publicly reassure younger immigrants brought to the country illegally not to worry about imminent deportation.[/B]
A day after reaching a fiscal agreement with Democrats over the objections of his own Treasury secretary and party leaders, Mr. Trump called Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California to reinforce his willingness to keep working across party lines. [B]He was effusive about their consensus. "The press has been incredible," he told Ms. Pelosi, according to a person briefed on the call.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
[B]Mr. Trump told reporters after the calls that the deal may signal a new era of bipartisanship.[/B] "I think we will have a different relationship than we’ve been watching over the last number of years. I hope so," he said. [B]"I think that’s a great thing for our country. And I think that’s what the people of the United States want to see. They want to see some dialogue. They want to see coming together to an extent."[/B]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52658772][U][B]Trump Reaches Out to Make More Deals With Congressional Democrats[/B][/U]
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/trump-pelosi-daca.html[/url][/QUOTE]
he wants the debt ceiling removed perminently, thats not bipartisanship thats saving himself headaches and removing democrat leverage
Repealing the debt ceiling would be pretty fantastic and great to see that the Dems appear to have found a way to work Trump
[editline]8th September 2017[/editline]
He is making the worst deals though lol he appears to just be accepting whatever the Dems propose
[QUOTE=Sableye;52658880]he wants the debt ceiling removed perminently, thats not bipartisanship thats saving himself headaches and removing democrat leverage[/QUOTE]
Well, actually, removing the fight over the debt ceiling would take leverage from both parties. Who shut down the government twice and brought the USA to the brink of defaulting on its debts for the first time ever during the Obama administration? Hint: Not the Democrats.
Republicans see the debt ceiling as a way to force sharp spending cuts by holding the debt ceiling hostage. It never should have been allowed to become this and if fucking [I]Trump[/I] of all people endorses and signs a bill that automatically raises the debt ceiling by an appropriate amount whenever the government authorizes new spending, give me a fucking MAGA hat so I can take it off and clap, because regardless of why the fuckhead does it or what he thinks it'll do, if that happens and it doesn't come with a blood sacrifice to the Republican side, that's [U]great[/U].
Just as an aside about the debt ceiling, the Democrats right now have the three-month extension to use as a club to extract concessions from Republicans at the end of the year, and typically Republicans don't win in end-of-year budget/debt ceiling showdowns... but at the same time there is no guarantee that the Dems will walk away with anything they want, because their baseline negotiating position is weak despite their filibuster-capable Senate minority. It would be so much better if this entire song and dance was eliminated and good governance replaced holding default as a hostage in partisan politicking.
Trump's legislative accomplishments for his first 230 days are practically zero. He needs wins, and he's going to go to whoever will cooperate and give him good press. And look who was willing to offer him a clear plan that half their own party wouldn't rebel against:
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52658772]Mr. Trump called ... Schumer [...and...] Pelosi to reinforce his willingness to keep working across party lines. He was effusive about their consensus. [B]"The press has been incredible,"[/B] he told Ms. Pelosi, according to a person briefed on the call.[/QUOTE]
Republicans were threatening to demand cuts that Democrats would not accept, and the Freedom Caucus was likely to demand even worse slashes than moderates would be comfortable with which would threaten to make yet another bill fail and a failure now wouldn't just disappoint people who expected Obamacare repeal, it'd potentially shut down the government, implode the global economy as America defaults on its debts, and fuck over everyone affected by Harvey and Irma as FEMA goes broke. That's bad press, and that's not a win.
Democrats, on the other hand, have a single overall plan for each proposal they have, rather than this fractured infighting, so they can deliver firm legislative goals to Trump that he can get behind and try and drag as many Republicans as needed over. And that's not a desirable look for many, but not all, Republicans in Congress: Voting against the President on bills that affect THEM (such as relief for Harvey and Irma) in order to stick to the party line, just because Democrats did it.
To call this a wonderful new era of partisanship is premature, though. Trump is going to throw the Dems under the bus as soon as it's inconvenient to be associated with them. If his base starts to revolt at the idea of King Donald dealing with [highlight]Democrats[/highlight] instead of the GOP and giving them what they want, he'll pivot on the spot and tell Schumer and Pelosi they can go suck a fat one while he runs back into what he assumes are the open arms of the Republicans.
He's a little kid in a creaky old body with tiny hands who believes he's entitled to special snowflake treatment 24/7/365.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52658939]Repealing the debt ceiling would be pretty fantastic and great to see that the Dems appear to have found a way to work Trump
[editline]8th September 2017[/editline]
He is making the worst deals though lol he appears to just be accepting whatever the Dems propose[/QUOTE]
in a stunning display of strategic brilliance, president donald trump has now signed the FAKENEWS act, which makes it illegal to be conservative in america
Not entirely sure why everyone is happy about sending their country further into debt, can someone please explain the logic to me?
[QUOTE=Faunze;52659621]Not entirely sure why everyone is happy about sending their country further into debt, can someone please explain the logic to me?[/QUOTE]
The debt ceiling - in which Congress sets a hard limit on the amount of debt that the United States is allowed to issue - is redundant, pointless and damaging.
It's [b]redundant[/b] because Congress already authorises debt by passing budget legislation. This sets out the US government's spending plans for the next year and therefore necessarily dictates how much new debt will need to be issued. As [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling]Wikipedia explains[/url]
[quote]Because expenditures are authorized by separate legislation, the debt ceiling does not directly limit government deficits. In effect, it can only restrain the Treasury from paying for expenditures and other financial obligations after the limit has been reached, but which have already been approved (in the budget) and appropriated.[/quote]
Because it only limits debt from being [i]paid[/i], rather than [i]authorised[/i], it's also [b]pointless[/b] because there is no option other than to raise the ceiling every time it's close to being hit - which is what Congress, one way or another, always ends up doing. If you didn't raise the ceiling and allowed it to be hit, the US would default on its payments and there would be another Great Recession.
However, even though the debt ceiling [i]has to be raised[/i] to avoid a catastrophic default, twice during the Obama administration Congress delayed raising it and demanded concessions before it would do so. In both 2011 and 2013, the debt ceiling was hit and the government was forced to adopt 'extraordinary measures' to fight off a default for as long as possible. Even though Congress ultimately raised the ceiling, this was [b]damaging[/b] because it created an artificial crisis which caused stock markets to plummet.
If Congress wants to reign in deficit spending they need to amend budget legislation so that the debt isn't authorised in the first place. It's no good authorising a load of debt and then saying 'you know that spending we told you to do? You can't raise any money to pay for it'
[QUOTE=Faunze;52659621]Not entirely sure why everyone is happy about sending their country further into debt, can someone please explain the logic to me?[/QUOTE]
Except it's not really putting the country deeper into debt, exactly. It's happening, but the debt ceiling itself is not the problem in the equation.
The US government spends more than it takes back in taxes, and so it borrows to pay its bills. Most of the debt is actually held by the US Treasury, not non-government creditors and foreign nations, so the country isn't actually "in debt" by nearly as much as it seems. America's credit rating is stellar as it [I]always[/I] pays its debts on time, so it can get away with borrowing to pay others back. National debt does not work exactly the same as personal debt and the government has much greater flexibility with it than the average consumer does with their mortgage.
However, what's critical to remember is that when the government needs to push the debt ceiling up, it is doing so not because it [I]wants[/I] to spend more money, but because [I]it has already spent[/I] that money and needs to be able to actually pay it. Refusing to increase the debt ceiling is tantamount to spending money and then refusing to take a loan to pay the bill once you've already committed to the purchase -- it's beyond irresponsible and just plain foolish to try and control spending by freezing the debt ceiling and threatening to default.
If Republicans are truly concerned about shrinking the deficit and returning fiscal responsibility to the federal government (they aren't), they would make the debt ceiling grow automatically with new spending and provide fiscal stability and responsibility to pay their debts, and they would focus on cutting wasteful spending ([URL="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1IG"]the Pentagon can't account for [B]trillions[/B] of dollars[/URL]) and increase tax revenue by closing loopholes used by big corporations and the richest of the rich. They would allow the debt ceiling to grow in response to needs but shrink the debt by creating a surplus, not slashing away the social safety net to give the elite a tax cut.
Fiscal responsibility needs to attack the problem from the other end instead of trying to prevent paying what's already owing.
Honestly trump is probably pretty decent on handling money and trading when it comes to presidents. Theres a silver lining on every cloud.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;52660486]Honestly trump is probably pretty decent on handling money and trading when it comes to presidents. Theres a silver lining on every cloud.[/QUOTE]
not really, his business "success" has been compounded interest and aggressive lawyering. this in terms of presidencies is number 4 of nate silver's predictions, which trump flails about burning bridges with both sides and never really finding traction. his tweets today show pretty clearly that he's gonna go back to bitching about nancy pelosci and the democrats the instant they are no longer useful to him, whether that be the tax plan which the gop leaders want to use reconciliation for, or the shut down duel in december. all this talk of bipartisanship is just like all the talk about the republican's three step healthcare plan, its completely hypathecial
[QUOTE=Str4fe;52660486]Honestly trump is probably pretty decent on handling money and trading when it comes to presidents. Theres a silver lining on every cloud.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you can say he's responsible with money at all, he's lost so much of it that no one in the US will lend to him anymore, that's why he's been laundering it from Russians.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52662997][citation heavily needed]
I think you've been getting some fake news from EnoughTrumpSpam or a similar subreddit.
[url]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Contrary to countless reports portraying President Donald Trump’s relationship with banks as toxic, a new MarketWatch analysis shows Trump has virtually no trouble getting loans on good terms[B] these days[/B]. [/QUOTE]
It actually goes into more detail about his past in the article that I don't think really lines up with your view here, but it's fair to say that President Trump is receiving those loans. It wouldn't be fair to use this article to say otherwise about his past though.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52663028]Why would it be different now though? The baseline for getting a loan is still the same, you provide either a good plan or collateral.[/QUOTE]
You don't think being President would change someones credit status...?
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52662997][citation heavily needed]
I think you've been getting some fake news from EnoughTrumpSpam or a similar subreddit.
[url]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-has-had-no-trouble-getting-big-loans-at-competitive-rates-2017-06-22[/url][/QUOTE]
The New Yorker actually, I don't read sources outside of what's usually accepted on here:
[QUOTE]But by [b]2012[/b] Trump was struggling in the U.S. market. His biggest investment, in American casinos, had proved ruinous, and he was now a minority owner of a near-bankrupt business. Trump had defaulted on loans multiple times, and nearly every bank in the U.S. refused to finance deals bearing his name. And so Trump turned to people in other countries who did not share this reluctance to give him money. In 2012 alone, the Trump Organization negotiated or finalized deals in Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, Georgia, India, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and Uruguay.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/trumps-business-of-corruption[/url]
Whether or not he could get a loan then or now doesn't change the fact that he's clearly not very careful about who he does business with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.