Hood Critic
The Power Circle
We haven't seen the actual legislation yet but if Never Kevin is selling it like this, this drama hasn't amounted to much for the GOP.
General Political Fúckery Thread - Subplot: Can Democrats Win Back The House In Nov?
- Thread starter mc_brew
- Start date
The_Unchosen_One
Superstar
Convert the Student Loans into PPP Loans so this way congress can't bytch about them being forgiven 
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Pretty much lolThis is.
This bytch and the rest of the 'progressive' caucus are gonna cave like they always do.
the cac mamba
Veteran
the same voters that made biden president, made mccarthy speaker
presumably to cut back on democrats' bullshyt spending. he didnt have a choice but to negotiate
Piff Perkins
Veteran
the same voters that made biden president, made mccarthy speaker
"democrats bullshyt spending" lmao. He's spent less than Trump. The debt ceiling should not be negotiated, parties shouldn't be able to hold the economy hostage. Given that the financial powers that be won't sit back and allow an economic implosion, there's no downside to forcing republican's hands by refusing to negotiate. They have a small majority in the House that can be overcome.
House Republicans Snipe and McCarthy on Debt Ceiling Deal
if The Freedom Crackers are Mad about it then its a Win
the cac mamba
Veteran
dems lost for not killing the debt ceiling between 2020 and 2022
didn't i read that they had the power to do that?anyway, i guess that we'll have to deal with the horror of making grown ass men work 20 hours a week to get medicaid
This is
This bytch and the rest of the 'progressive' caucus are gonna cave like they always do.
That awkward moment when you beg for progressive politicians and they end up (continuing) to side with the centrists
the cac mamba
Veteran
even the godless liberals and aqua city trehs don't benefit from crashing the economyThat awkward moment when you beg for progressive politicians and they end up (continuing) to side with the centrists
if some fukkin bums have to work 20 hours a week to get medicaid, so be it. if these cuts are so bad, hold republicans accountable in 2024
This part of the deal is concerning
prospect.org
Administrative paygo: This was a surprise, not mentioned in the leaks of the agreement, and not mentioned by the White House in their talking points. House Republicans proudly touted it, but their version of events is unreliable. So it’s unclear what the scope of this is right now.
However, administrative paygo is the nickname for a 2005 executive order from George W. Bush, which was strengthened in 2019 by Donald Trump. To summarize, any time a federal agency proposes an action that would increase mandatory spending, it must also propose reducing mandatory spending by the same amount. In the above example, if a new income-driven repayment system would increase Education Department spending (really reducing loan revenue), it would have to somehow take action to offset it by an equivalent amount.
Right now this is an executive order. The deal would make it statutory. That means that failing to offset mandatory spending at the agency level would violate the law, not just an administrative directive. Republican administrations aren’t likely to create costly regulations; Democratic administrations are. This could be a tool that poses enough threat to Democratic-led agencies that they shrink from taking action.
Former and current regulators have expressed alarm to me that this would be included. “This would be VERY VERY VERY bad for anyone that wants new regulations to protect the public,” tweeted Public Citizen’s Amit Narang, “and VERY VERY VERY good for corporations that want another talking point against regulations that hold them accountable for not endangering the public.” A lot more reporting has to be done to see what’s actually in the bargain.
That’s basically the agreement. Freedom Caucus Republicans are already mad about it; to them, it looks too much like a normal agreement and nothing like their ambitions. Democrats really got nothing out of it—the worst was just mitigated somewhat—so progressives have no real motivation to endorse this. But the White House can sell it. They avoided the worst, protected most of the core programs, and can say that, if Democrats win full control of the government again in 2024, they’ll reverse the bad parts. The House vote will be Tuesday; I imagine it will get done, albeit with some agita. This is the kind of deal that passes the Senate with 80 votes.
Keep in mind that this only extends federal borrowing for two years, after which we have to do this all over again. The 2024 election, if it wasn’t already consequential, becomes much more so from a fiscal perspective. Depending on the makeup of Congress and the White House—and remember the upcoming Senate map is terrible for Democrats—the future of domestic discretionary spending as the cap lifts, the ability to hijack the debt limit, and the fate of the Trump tax cuts, which expire in 2025, are all up in the air.
Janet Yellen pleaded to get the debt ceiling solved in 2022, when Democrats controlled the government. The slings and arrows in this agreement are the result of that failure. It generally makes things a little bit worse. That this is seen as progress is a sad commentary on Washington.
As Deals Go, This Is One of Them
An X-Date special: running down the details of the debt ceiling agreement.
prospect.org
Administrative paygo: This was a surprise, not mentioned in the leaks of the agreement, and not mentioned by the White House in their talking points. House Republicans proudly touted it, but their version of events is unreliable. So it’s unclear what the scope of this is right now.
However, administrative paygo is the nickname for a 2005 executive order from George W. Bush, which was strengthened in 2019 by Donald Trump. To summarize, any time a federal agency proposes an action that would increase mandatory spending, it must also propose reducing mandatory spending by the same amount. In the above example, if a new income-driven repayment system would increase Education Department spending (really reducing loan revenue), it would have to somehow take action to offset it by an equivalent amount.
Right now this is an executive order. The deal would make it statutory. That means that failing to offset mandatory spending at the agency level would violate the law, not just an administrative directive. Republican administrations aren’t likely to create costly regulations; Democratic administrations are. This could be a tool that poses enough threat to Democratic-led agencies that they shrink from taking action.
Former and current regulators have expressed alarm to me that this would be included. “This would be VERY VERY VERY bad for anyone that wants new regulations to protect the public,” tweeted Public Citizen’s Amit Narang, “and VERY VERY VERY good for corporations that want another talking point against regulations that hold them accountable for not endangering the public.” A lot more reporting has to be done to see what’s actually in the bargain.
That’s basically the agreement. Freedom Caucus Republicans are already mad about it; to them, it looks too much like a normal agreement and nothing like their ambitions. Democrats really got nothing out of it—the worst was just mitigated somewhat—so progressives have no real motivation to endorse this. But the White House can sell it. They avoided the worst, protected most of the core programs, and can say that, if Democrats win full control of the government again in 2024, they’ll reverse the bad parts. The House vote will be Tuesday; I imagine it will get done, albeit with some agita. This is the kind of deal that passes the Senate with 80 votes.
Keep in mind that this only extends federal borrowing for two years, after which we have to do this all over again. The 2024 election, if it wasn’t already consequential, becomes much more so from a fiscal perspective. Depending on the makeup of Congress and the White House—and remember the upcoming Senate map is terrible for Democrats—the future of domestic discretionary spending as the cap lifts, the ability to hijack the debt limit, and the fate of the Trump tax cuts, which expire in 2025, are all up in the air.
Janet Yellen pleaded to get the debt ceiling solved in 2022, when Democrats controlled the government. The slings and arrows in this agreement are the result of that failure. It generally makes things a little bit worse. That this is seen as progress is a sad commentary on Washington.
Shid
the cac mamba
Veteran
it's concerning that new spending has to accompany cuts in current spending? we're 32 trillion in debtThis part of the deal is concerning
As Deals Go, This Is One of Them
An X-Date special: running down the details of the debt ceiling agreement.
Administrative paygo: This was a surprise, not mentioned in the leaks of the agreement, and not mentioned by the White House in their talking points. House Republicans proudly touted it, but their version of events is unreliable. So it’s unclear what the scope of this is right now.
However, administrative paygo is the nickname for a 2005 executive order from George W. Bush, which was strengthened in 2019 by Donald Trump. To summarize, any time a federal agency proposes an action that would increase mandatory spending, it must also propose reducing mandatory spending by the same amount. In the above example, if a new income-driven repayment system would increase Education Department spending (really reducing loan revenue), it would have to somehow take action to offset it by an equivalent amount.
Right now this is an executive order. The deal would make it statutory. That means that failing to offset mandatory spending at the agency level would violate the law, not just an administrative directive. Republican administrations aren’t likely to create costly regulations; Democratic administrations are. This could be a tool that poses enough threat to Democratic-led agencies that they shrink from taking action.
Former and current regulators have expressed alarm to me that this would be included. “This would be VERY VERY VERY bad for anyone that wants new regulations to protect the public,” tweeted Public Citizen’s Amit Narang, “and VERY VERY VERY good for corporations that want another talking point against regulations that hold them accountable for not endangering the public.” A lot more reporting has to be done to see what’s actually in the bargain.
That’s basically the agreement. Freedom Caucus Republicans are already mad about it; to them, it looks too much like a normal agreement and nothing like their ambitions. Democrats really got nothing out of it—the worst was just mitigated somewhat—so progressives have no real motivation to endorse this. But the White House can sell it. They avoided the worst, protected most of the core programs, and can say that, if Democrats win full control of the government again in 2024, they’ll reverse the bad parts. The House vote will be Tuesday; I imagine it will get done, albeit with some agita. This is the kind of deal that passes the Senate with 80 votes.
Keep in mind that this only extends federal borrowing for two years, after which we have to do this all over again. The 2024 election, if it wasn’t already consequential, becomes much more so from a fiscal perspective. Depending on the makeup of Congress and the White House—and remember the upcoming Senate map is terrible for Democrats—the future of domestic discretionary spending as the cap lifts, the ability to hijack the debt limit, and the fate of the Trump tax cuts, which expire in 2025, are all up in the air.
Janet Yellen pleaded to get the debt ceiling solved in 2022, when Democrats controlled the government. The slings and arrows in this agreement are the result of that failure. It generally makes things a little bit worse. That this is seen as progress is a sad commentary on Washington.
i don't have or want kids, so i only care about getting 30 or 40 more years outta this motherfukker. but don't you guys care about the long term implication of this debt?
its gonna implode at some point
You're not getting it.it's concerning that new spending has to accompany cuts in current spending? we're 32 trillion in debt
i don't have or want kids, so i only care about getting 30 or 40 more years outta this motherfukker. but don't you guys care about the long term implication of this debt?
PAYGO requirement would apply to any rule that increased the reach or generosity of programs like Medicaid, SNAP, Section 8, and Public Service Loan Forgiveness. Administrative discretion by the head of each agency would be hampered by having to always have offsets.
That hampers program implementation.
And no, this debt isn't a big deal. US economy continues to grow. And if you want to close the deficit, get rid of the Trump tax cuts and some other tweaks and the deficit gets closed pretty quickly.