It makes sense for me, as a private individual, to have credit limits - limits which are set by the lender - because I really, as a private citizen, do not have the ability to allocate funds or to have any control over how much I receive. Governments do have such control.
Also, as I pointed out, my credit limit is set by the lender. It makes no sense for a carved-in-stone limits to be pre-set by a borrower, whether or not that borrower is a government or a private party. To some degree prediction is possible, but no one and no government is sufficiently clairvoyany to predict what one will need for expenses in any given year.
As was once pointed out in an editorial, "...if you make enough to put a roof over your head and food on the table but not enough to buy a congressman, you're going to get screwed on taxes."
Sure - but that's totally flexible. I can change mi mind any time, multiple times. I can do that as an individual. Why would a government tie its own hands?
The point is, that if you do not pay the credit card company want they demand from you, they cut off your credit. Even for a private individual, stomping your feet and saying "It's my money, I get to decide whether to pay you," is not a smart move.
That is a great argument against defaulting. It is not an argument for haveig a debt limit which any political party which holds both malice and a majority can use to force a default.
That's what the debt limit IS. It's a promise to default once what we owe grows beyond what we decide to pay. We keep changing our mind about defaulting, but promising to default in the first place is stupid.
I agree that's why, though I feel like of those options, increasing immigration would actually be the best outcome for them. They already exploit immigrant labor and immigrants on the whole are mostly younger than those they're trying to prevent from retiring. In the sociopathic math of the ownership class, it just makes sense. But, then again, they run up against the virulent racism and nativism on the right when it comes to increasing immigration.
It might be a situation of a little from column A, a little from column B.
"And just like that, the debt limit, a terrible law anyway, would cease to be an issue ever again."
Something I'm not understanding, though: what would stop Republicans from undoing an astronomical number? Going back to a debt ceiling a little greater than the one we have now?
ETA: if they regain power of both house and Senate
Sad for that poor AI Duck....also, will Sinechan allow this to pass by any f-ing stretch of the imagination? Seems like an issue it would be horrible about....
It doesn't serve their needs either. The only reason they whine about the debt ceiling is that it allows them to call Dems "tax and spend liberals" who run up the debt. When they run up the debt, it doesn't get mentioned.
It makes sense for me, as a private individual, to have credit limits - limits which are set by the lender - because I really, as a private citizen, do not have the ability to allocate funds or to have any control over how much I receive. Governments do have such control.
Also, as I pointed out, my credit limit is set by the lender. It makes no sense for a carved-in-stone limits to be pre-set by a borrower, whether or not that borrower is a government or a private party. To some degree prediction is possible, but no one and no government is sufficiently clairvoyany to predict what one will need for expenses in any given year.
"Sorry, we don't take checks."
Every Motel 6 clerk.
As was once pointed out in an editorial, "...if you make enough to put a roof over your head and food on the table but not enough to buy a congressman, you're going to get screwed on taxes."
It's more like: you've already run a big tab on your credit card, but you get to set a limit on how much you will pay the credit card company.
"whenever they hold the trifecta again" That must never be allowed to occur
Sure - but that's totally flexible. I can change mi mind any time, multiple times. I can do that as an individual. Why would a government tie its own hands?
The point is, that if you do not pay the credit card company want they demand from you, they cut off your credit. Even for a private individual, stomping your feet and saying "It's my money, I get to decide whether to pay you," is not a smart move.
That is a great argument against defaulting. It is not an argument for haveig a debt limit which any political party which holds both malice and a majority can use to force a default.
That's what the debt limit IS. It's a promise to default once what we owe grows beyond what we decide to pay. We keep changing our mind about defaulting, but promising to default in the first place is stupid.
I agree that's why, though I feel like of those options, increasing immigration would actually be the best outcome for them. They already exploit immigrant labor and immigrants on the whole are mostly younger than those they're trying to prevent from retiring. In the sociopathic math of the ownership class, it just makes sense. But, then again, they run up against the virulent racism and nativism on the right when it comes to increasing immigration.
It might be a situation of a little from column A, a little from column B.
Early voting had already started when she was confirmed too—they barely got her through before Election Day in 2020.
*screams internally about McConnell stealing a seat from Obama with his "No SCOTUS Nominees in an Election Year" made-up bullshit*
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
"And just like that, the debt limit, a terrible law anyway, would cease to be an issue ever again."
Something I'm not understanding, though: what would stop Republicans from undoing an astronomical number? Going back to a debt ceiling a little greater than the one we have now?
ETA: if they regain power of both house and Senate
Sad for that poor AI Duck....also, will Sinechan allow this to pass by any f-ing stretch of the imagination? Seems like an issue it would be horrible about....
Didn't Amy Boney Carrot get confirmed in a lame duck session?
It doesn't serve their needs either. The only reason they whine about the debt ceiling is that it allows them to call Dems "tax and spend liberals" who run up the debt. When they run up the debt, it doesn't get mentioned.