The Debt Ceiling Fight, part deux

[UnderAGreySky]

The fight to raise the debt ceiling is on, and this time neither Obama not the Tea Party are willing to compromise. So which way do you see the fight going this time?

A bargain *seems* to be the likely solution, but every article I read (like this) says that the Tea Partiers are not willing to compromise.

GOP officials said more than half of their members are prepared to allow default unless Obama agrees to dramatic cuts he has repeatedly said he opposes. Many more members, including some party leaders, are prepared to shut down the government to make their point. House Speaker John Boehner “may need a shutdown just to get it out of their system,” said a top GOP leadership adviser. “We might need to do that for member-management purposes — so they have an endgame and can show their constituents they’re fighting.”

The country would eventually default if House Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit, which the Treasury estimates will hit in late February or early March. The government would shut down if House Republicans instead were to refuse to extend the law funding current government operations on March 27.

The argument for a straight vote:

This weekend, administration officials told Paul Krugman what they have told many of us, and what Obama said at his press conference just now: He simply will not let Republicans turn the debt ceiling into a chance to extract policy concessions. It never happened before Obama allowed it in 2011, and were it to become enshrined, it will be not only a permanent ratchet toward the Paul Ryan vision of government but an endless series of Russsian roulette games that will ultimately lead to the gun going off.

Many of us have questioned whether Obama will actually follow through on his stated intention. In these games of chicken, he always seems ready to swerve at the last moment. What’s different here is that Obama seems so determined and explicit not to pay a ransom that he is leaving himself no room to backslide. If he pays the ransom, he’ll leave himself humiliated and exposed in a way he never has.

So there you have it. Are you excited yet?

[Simon_Jester]

At this point I'm just resigned to the government locking down at least once; the Republicans have been married to a policy of sabotaging it whenever a Democrat holds the White House, because there apparently aren't enough senior Republicans left who remember 1995, or at least not enough who care.

I suspect the policy will lose its appeal to senior Republicans again after it actually happens, just as they'd hold fewer filibusters if they actually had to stand up and deliver the damn filibuster. It's much easier to make threats when there are no real consequences for your actions.

[Dalton]

The lie that raising the debt ceiling will somehow magically allow Obama to spend more money is quite pervasive. This will get extremely nasty.

[Simon_Jester]

In the sense of "allow the government to keep functioning," yes it does "allow Obama to spend more money." Anyone who objects to this really ought to be labeled a closet anarchist, because frankly that's the only way I can see to justify it.

If the Republicans really think the United States are in such a desperate position that a total government shutdown and financial collapse would be better than continued deficit spending, they deserve to get torn to bits at the polls. If they don't really think that and are just doing it out of histrionics, I am still beginning to wish I could just watch the Democrats say "fine, whatever, you'll compromise on one dollar cuts per dollar tax hikes or not compromise at all instead of playing chicken with a balanced budget amendment at the stupidest possible time" and let the chips fall where they may.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

And the incredible thing is that, if Republicans in '16 came on a platform of "the dems bankrupted the country", they would actually win.

[Zaune]

In the sense of "allow the government to keep functioning," yes it does "allow Obama to spend more money." Anyone who objects to this really ought to be labelled a closet anarchist, because frankly that's the only way I can see to justify it.

I don't think I'm a closet anarchist, but am I the only person who thinks a government shutdown and financial collapse would be better in the long run than this constant cycle of desperate flailing to secure a compromise that does nothing but kick the problem down the road for a few years?

[Napoleon the Clown]

Not being alone in holding a view does not make that view a good one. A more rational view would be "Fuck the debt ceiling, just get rid of it and decide on a budget that isn't crazy in either direction."

There's no point to a debt ceiling if we're just gonna raise it whenever we get close.

[Dominus Atheos]

I voted "other" because I see only 1 scenario with two possible endings:

Obama stands firm for about 5 minutes, then decides to "grand "bargain" and gives the Republican leadership everything they asked for and then some on top. The tebaggers still refuse to support it because they are batshit crazy; while the congressional dems hem and haw because, 3 years too late, they seem to have figured out that the GOP will never agree to any plan put forth by a dem or even a plan that dems agree with.

Either we default or the debt limit gets extended for 2-3 months so we can do it all over again.

On an unrelated note, sig test.

[Lonestar]

I bet you all 500 Quatloos that the gun control plan that will be unveiled tomorrow(err...today) is for being used as a bargaining tool against the GOP for the Debt Ceiling.

[PainRack]

Anyone remember the old adage about how safe money investing means buying bottled water and T-bills?

Guess this means we should stick to buying bottled water.....

[Simon_Jester]

Not being alone in holding a view does not make that view a good one. A more rational view would be "Fuck the debt ceiling, just get rid of it and decide on a budget that isn't crazy in either direction."

There's no point to a debt ceiling if we're just gonna raise it whenever we get close.

There's also no point to a debt ceiling if it exists purely to point a gun on the government's head when we cross an arbitrary line. Especially if we cross the line during times when it is stupid to be obsessing over balancing the budget instead of getting the economy firing on all cylinders again. Like now.

So I think we can extend this to "there's no point in a debt ceiling, period."

The entire battle over debt and deficit is... incredibly mistimed, if you look at it from a public-policy point of view. We've been fighting over practically nothing else since the Republicans took office in early 2011. All meaningful policy decisions are either being postponed, or are being made by the executive branch as it conns the ship of state from an auxiliary position while the bridge is packed full of bickering idiots.

Now, we all have pretty good notions of why this is happening- but it really puts the debt ceiling into a new light, because without it the Congress might actually have some energy left over to deal with at least SOME other problems.

[UnderAGreySky]

Well, well, well...

House Republicans agree to raise ceiling for three months

While at a GOP retreat, House Republican leaders on Friday announced a vote next week on a three-month extension of the debt limit, with a requirement that both chambers pass a budget or else go without pay.

The added condition to the short term extension bill aims to force the Democratic-led Senate to pass a budget–something the upper chamber hasn't done in four years.

House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy told CNN that "what we're trying to do is put us on a path to a balanced budget."

"April 15th is the deadline for both houses to pass a budget," he continued. "A budget is a roadmap to not only where you are but where you can go. Unfortunately the House has passed one the last two times, but the Senate has not, and what has that created? A $16 trillion debt. An idea of not knowing where our economy is gonna go."

The short-term extension strategy represents a departure from recent discussions where Republicans pushed that any increase in the debt limit must include spending cuts that amounted to the same size of the increase.

And Republican leaders seem to be steering clear of any suggestions that the party is willing to risk allowing the government to default on its loans–the consequence should the debt ceiling be kept as is–as a way to put pressure on the White House and Senate Democrats to carve out drastic spending cuts.

"We are not going to default- I don't know of anybody, and I move in fairly fiscally conservative circles within our party – none of us are talking about default," said conservative GOP Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina. He also signaled he agreed with the new House GOP strategy.

"If you can figure out ways to get little types of reforms, little fixes for small extensions I don't find that objectionable," Mulvaney told reporters.

(more at link, but not more worthy details)

[General Mung Beans]

I voted "other" because I see only 1 scenario with two possible endings:

Obama stands firm for about 5 minutes, then decides to "grand "bargain" and gives the Republican leadership everything they asked for and then some on top. The tebaggers still refuse to support it because they are batshit crazy; while the congressional dems hem and haw because, 3 years too late, they seem to have figured out that the GOP will never agree to any plan put forth by a dem or even a plan that dems agree with.

This wasn't the case in the Fiscal Cliff debate. And the cuts enacted in the last fiscal cliff debate have been delayed time and again so essentially promising future cuts is hardly caving in to the GOP for an immediate fiscal cliff raise especially if Obama manages to push in more cuts in military spending.