Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
Congress (the R's, specifically) will expand the debt ceiling by the due date after all the public and private infighting is done. One major reason why is neither party, despite perpetual arm flailing and incessant spitting during verbal arguments, can or is willing to afford the political fallout from failure to increase it. It represents political suicide, and these guys want to keep their cushy jobs for the next round. It's an often-played movie that we, as citizens, are forced to watch. The R's and D's take positional turns as the actors. Since 1960, Congress has voted to raise, modify, or extend the debt ceiling 78 times ( I Googled that stat, FWIW..blame the source). Both parties have used it as a weapon , historically and factually speaking.
The R's included approval of a one time increase in the debt ceiling in their recently passed spending bill in the House, but made that contingent on spending cuts over an extended period. Why is that surprising? That's typical R vs D monetary policy combat, isn't it? This argument starts and ends with positions on the need to curb govt spending ..and in which specific programs / areas are to be cut. I think we need to generally cut spending as stated previously, provided those cuts don't punish the tax-paying citizenry and the truly needy. Now we have to define those latter areas with some specificity..and the perpetual argument resumes. The Congress will collectively find a way to concoct a budget / spending/ debt ceiling agreement by the due date and then hold nationwide press conferences that will involve 'bipartisanship' verbage. There's never an end to this movie..just short term act / sequel breaks.
Scuse me, this thread was about inflation / recession wasn't it? I think the above applies to those. The Federal Reserve , as of May 5, reported the odds of a recession in 2023 to be 64%. Feel free to argue with them. Some large - asseted ( or large-assed, if you prefer) banks have failed recently as all are aware ( some due to inept management, regulatory failures, over-investment in certain securities, and massive depositor withdrawals in response to risk ) and there are 6 others on the verge of collapse, or so says this source...
https://www.thestreet.com/banking/banks-most-at-risk-morningstar ( call it my version of cherry picking if ya want..I don't care). One of those on that list (First Republic) just folded..I think Morgan Chase consumed them.
Decide for yourself, and know that there are of course other sources that suggest many more than that ( one estimate as high as 186..we all better doubt that and hope not) are at risk. I don't know, but things aren't rosy in the financial / banking sector. We'll see whether fear mongering or complacency actually wins here, or if we can formulate new and nontraditional descriptions for inflation / recession. We'll see.
Personally, I miss watching NFL games. Not applicable to the debt ceiling necessarily, but real. I'll get over it..because I have to.
Charles, there's one factor you're not considering--actually two. The federal budget must increase to keep pace with inflation AND with population growth. So, for example, in an environment of 6% annual inflation and 1% population growth, the budget has to increase by 7% nominally just to provide the same level of services. So we can't and shouldn't reduce spending (that horrible, horrible word!).
Now, you can kick back and forth like a soccer ball all the various rationales for spending this or that. However, the current blah blah is about paying the bills. And why can't we pay the bills? Why do we need to borrow? The Trump tax cuts are largely to blame. (Right this moment, stupid Tommie-poo is combing the internet, looking for a "source" that "proves" that those tax cuts ushered in a new age of prosperity, unicorns, and rainbows.)
While bank failures are never a plus, they're also not unequivocally a minus. Banks are businesses. Businesses fail, either from bad luck or bad management. Why not take a Darwinian approach, while using the FDIC to protect depositors? Hell, if the FDIC runs out of money (unlikely), then give people tax credits. Refundable tax credits. And BTW, other banks buying up failed banks, always at a huge bargain, is actually noble capitalism in action in its finest incarnation, so why is everyone rattled?
And yeah, whatever we do, whether it's putting daisies on the lapels of transgender firefighterss or setting up poison gas and antipersonnel mines on the Mexican border, let's pay for it. We can't do what we're doing now, which is refuse to write the checks.
As to the question as to who the "truly needy" are who should be helped, well, that's a nuanced and complex question, but RepubliQ orthodoxy provides a sword with which to cut that Gordian knot: white people. All them funny-colored people can starve and die. See? Politics is simple!
