[CaptainMarvel]

Let’s be clear it’s not “every couple of years”. It’s “every time there is a democratic president, the republican-controlled legislative branches refuse to raise the debt ceiling”.

How many times has this ever happened in reverse?

Democrats must stop compromising with people that blatantly do not operate in good faith.

[logifail]

> it’s not “every couple of years”

"Since 1960, Congress has raised, extended, or revised the debt limit 78 separate times, of which 49 were under Republican presidents and 29 were under Democratic presidents, according to the Department of Treasury. In each of those instances, Congress took action on the debt limit before the nation defaulted."[0]

> Democrats must stop compromising with people that blatantly do not operate in good faith.

I wouldn't want any politician (regardless of party allegiance) to agree on any spending if there is not also an agreement on how to finance such spending.

If companies or individuals were to run their own finances like politicians run government finances, they'd go bankrupt and/or land in jail pretty quickly. Why should our elected representatives (yes, all of them!) not have to worry about this stuff?

[0] https://time.com/6281003/debt-ceiling-history/

[kelthan]

The debt ceiling "crisis" is a completely manufactured political cliff. It serves no purpose other than to be used as a wedge during political debates.

When Congress passes a bill for anything that requires spending, the time to debate that spending is before the bill is passed. Once that bill passes and is signed into law, then US government is now responsible to cover that cost.

The debate about the debt ceiling is all about one party saying that they don't want to pay for the spending that has already been debated, approved, and signed into law. This is akin to going to an expensive restaurant, ordering the food, enjoying dinner, and then when the bill arrives, saying "Oh, I won't spend that much on dinner!". That's not the way the world works. If you can't afford the food, the time to make that decision is when you are making your restaurant choice, or when you are ordering, not after the bill arrives.

[jrockway]

> I wouldn't want any politician (regardless of party allegiance) to agree on any spending if there is not also an agreement on how to finance such spending.

In the case of the debt ceiling spats, Congress has literally already authorized the money to be spent. The debt ceiling prevents the executive branch from borrowing money to spend according to Congress's wishes. That's why everyone thinks it's weird.

[logifail]

> Congress has literally already authorized the money to be spent

If you were a business or a family, you'd talk about how you plan to agree to finance any serious purchase before (or at the very least in parallel ) with agreeing the purchase itself.

[lesuorac]

Sure but that's apples to oranges.

Congress authorizes say 10T to spend. Over the next years the president spends 7T and then the coffers run empty and says hey I need more money to do what you told me to do! And then congress raises the debt ceiling and borrows to cover that 3T.

Which of course differs from your example in that when you go to buy say a car you also agree to borrow the money (or not). Congress only makes just-in-time decisions.

I also don't think its true that as a business you'd have made that decision. Do you consult the CFO every time you use the corporate card?

[logifail]

> Congress only makes just-in-time decisions

Do they have to do it like that, or is that just how it's done?

How about in parallel with the budget they also discuss the debt ceiling? Get the finance in place, then agree how to spend what money they've agreed they can raise? Apologies in advance if that suggestion is completely ignorant and/or completely crazy :)

[jrockway]

As far as I know, no other democracy does anything like this. If the legislature authorizes spending then the agency with that budget is allowed to spend it.

[logifail]

> Congress authorizes say 10T to spend. Over the next years the president spends 7T and then the coffers run empty

I'm not sure what to understand by politicians "agreeing 10T of spending" if everyone involved knows the financing has a hard stop at 7T.

That's not agreeing 10T, that's agreeing 7T. Plus a 3T wishlist.

[lesuorac]

> if everyone involved knows the financing has a hard stop at 7T.

Well, technically they don't know there is a hard stop at 7T. Since revenue (taxes) and expenditures are very separate things it could've been at 8T or say 11T but if it was at 11T we'd have a surplus and so this conversation would've never happened.

When you pass a bill requiring the president to do something there is no requirement to justify how anything the bill will be paid for.

Similarly, you can pass a bill adjusting the tax code without explaining where the additional revenue will go to or in the case of a decrease what programs will be removed.

---

Business works very similar to this as well. Divisions are given budgets to spend but those budgets aren't in lock-step with revenue.

[kelthan]

Congress does not make "just in time decisions" in the way you imply. If Congress passes a bill for some program, they agree in the bill what the program will and won't do and they estimate the costs of that program over the lifetime specified in the bill. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does those estimates for Congress before the bill is passed. Those budget estimates are part of the bill.

A note on how Congress works for those who are not from the US: Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, has "the power of the purse", meaning that they alone have the ability to create laws that require spending money. The Senate--the other half of Congress--must also pass those bills before they are signed into law by the President, but cannot originate them. The Senate can modify them with the approval of the House, in process known as "reconciliation".

Once a bill is signed into law, the Executive Branch, headed by the President, is required to initiate (or continue) the program defined by the law, and to direct the Treasury pay the bills for that program. Neither the President nor the Treasury has the option to just ignore the parameters of the law that has been passed.

Because the CBO estimates are just that, sometimes the spending required to run the program exceeds the estimated budget, simply because the CBO cannot foresee every circumstance (war, global pandemic, inflation, etc.) In that case, the Executive and the Treasury are still required to continue to run and pay for those programs.

When the Treasure runs out of money to pay for the programs that Congress passed, it must borrow money. The amount of money that it can borrow is defined as the "debt ceiling". Once the Treasury exceeds the Debt Ceiling, Congress must authorize more money so that the Treasury can continue to pay for all of the programs that Congress has passed into law.

When Congress says they won't raise the debt ceiling they are saying "We are not willing to let the Treasury borrow money to pay for the things we told the Executive branch that they must do." But the Executive branch didn't pass the laws, Congress did. The laws that require money to be borrowed may have been passed last year, or decades ago.

If Congress really wishes to control spending (which is what is claimed as the reason not to raise the debt ceiling), then they can do so by not passing bills that require spending more money, since they are in sole control of what the Executive branch can spend money on. Which is why the debt ceiling debate is completely artificial, and not a "just in time" function. Rather it is the current Congress basically saying that they didn't like the spending passed by either themselves or previous Congresses, and they want to retroactively change the laws, and they wish to do so without having to go through the process of actually creating the laws, debating them, and passing them--usually because the spending they really disagree with is wildly popular and would not likely survive the regular legislative process.

[PopAlongKid]

The reference to "every couple of years" was not to routine, non-dramatic votes. It was clearly about only "brinkmanship around the debt ceiling", which as stated only tends to happen with Republican majority in one or both parts of Congress and Democratic president.

[cmh89]

>If companies or individuals were to run their own finances like politicians run government finances, they'd go bankrupt and/or land in jail pretty quickly.

Amazingly, the government is structured differently than your family's finances! I'm all for fiscal responsibility and would love to see the US slash it's corporate welfare budget, but the government is not a family and shouldn't be run like one.

[kelthan]

Government spending and business/personal finance management are two completely different things. While lots of people like to equate them, they are fundamentally very different.

[CaptainMarvel]

Thank you for the additional facts, I was only looking at the most recent 25 years and "debt ceiling crises" on Wikipedia.

[WJW]

Looking from outside the USA: If they don't cooperate then the budget won't be approved at all, no? It's all good and well not to want to cooperate with people that don't act in good faith, but since the other party has almost half the seats in the senate and a majority in the house of reps then how do you govern at all?

[firebird84]

The budget is already approved, the debt limit has nothing to do with it, it's just a cudgel with which one party bludgeons the other. It serves no other purpose.

[unsupp0rted]

> How many times has this ever happened in reverse?

How many times have democrats been pro-gun and anti-abortion?

Of course republicans play games with the debt ceiling- part of their platform is predicated on cutting government income / spending.

[lesuorac]

> Of course republicans play games with the debt ceiling- part of their platform is predicated on cutting government income / spending.

Part of their _campaigning_ is on cutting government spending. But when they're actually elected the spending goes up.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budg...

[Eric_WVGG]

If that were true they would be consistent about the debt ceiling while there were republican presidents in office. That’s what “bad faith” means.

[pavlov]

The difference is that Republicans are pro debt ceiling only when they’re not in power, but happy to take trillions more debt when they are.

Democrats don’t suddenly pass anti-abortion bills when they have the House.

[spacephysics]

I think we’re too in the weeds and too tribal with this analysis.

Outside of privacy-invading legislature (or corporate legislature), both sides of the aisle fail to agree or compromise on working for the people.

When there’s an opportunity to use leverage, it makes sense to use it. But it’s like MAD concept, they’re not going to actually let the US default. It’s not in either party’s self interest.

Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game.

To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it.

[cmh89]

>Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game. To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it.

Can you provide some examples of Democratic controlled "X" threatening to default on the debt to achieve a policy goal?

If you're going to play "both side-ism", you should provide some examples. I can't remember Democrats doing things equivalent to holding an economic gun to America's head.

[PopAlongKid]

>Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president.

But we're not talking about just "something", we're talking about paying the bills that have already been authorized.