Posted on 09/07/2017 10:42:02 AM PDT by Mariner
President Trump and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) have agreed to pursue a deal that would permanently remove the requirement that Congress repeatedly raise the debt ceiling, three people familiar with the decision said.
Trump and Schumer discussed the idea Wednesday during an Oval Office meeting. The two, along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.), agreed to work together over the next several months to try to finalize a plan, which would need to be approved by Congress.
One of the people familiar described it as a “gentlemen’s agreement.”
Senate Democrats hope they will be able to finalize an arrangement with Trump by December.
“The president encouraged congressional leaders to find a more permanent solution to the debt ceiling so the vote is not so frequently politicized,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yes, they can, but what possible incentive could Congress have to REDUCE its pay? We’ve seen how corrupt the Federal government has become since the 16th/17th amendments, and that’s because they’ve got both the power (17th) and money (16th) to do pretty much anything they want, ignoring what the states want. The last power the states have over FedGov is the ability to introduce Constitutional amendments. And that one is not being used.
“I’m not arguing with u about a balanced budget. I’m just looking at it from the real world of politicians giving voters what they want. Hell most ppl want the dreamers to stay, most ppl think denying ppl for pre-existing medical conditions is bad. The majority vote based on their feelings, without any idea or care that things cost money and somewhere, somebody is going to pay the cost.”
Agree. We are where we are because of the tyranny of the majority. If you took a poll on FR, I would bet most people would say pre-existing conditions MUST be a part of any “repeal and replace” bill, which is not a repeal in any sense of the word.
I think that President Trump made a smart decision with this, based on how the debt limit has been used and abused in the past.
1) It invariably just punishes a Republican POTUS, not the congress who are slacking off. Yet, Congress proved it doesn’t really hurt a Democrat POTUS.
2) It has been used by a Democrat POTUS and the MSM to undermine the conservatives in congress and make them look bad before their base, even though by themselves they could not have ended it. Basically a whip, “to get conservatives into line with the RINOs.”
3) Ryan was planning to use this as a delaying tactic against even considering President Trump’s agenda items, hurting his timetable as much as possible.
4) By agreeing with the Democrats to end this, it also defuses a lot of the DACA fight that was going to be used against President Trump by the Dems and hypocritical RINOs.
Thus the “sneak it in” part. Those assholes rarely read the bills that they “write”.
Sounds great if it would actually happen.
“There would no longer be a lever to exact spending and deficit concessions”
Given the,spineless maggots we currently call republicans, there may as well not be a lever anyway.
We already are since they never refuse to raise it.
>
Yes, they can, but what possible incentive could Congress have to REDUCE its pay? We’ve seen how corrupt the Federal government has become since the 16th/17th amendments, and that’s because they’ve got both the power (17th) and money (16th) to do pretty much anything they want, ignoring what the states want. The last power the states have over FedGov is the ability to introduce Constitutional amendments. And that one is not being used.
>
SLIGHTLY incorrect. The States, per the 9th/10th, have the ability (nay, OBLIGATION) to tell Fedzilla to go pound sound over its encroachments & power grabs.
Though, IMO, the ConCon is *THE* last ditch, the States (and, thereby We the People) are not asserting their proper role in this dying/dead Republic.
I must concede that w/ the ‘last, great’ populace uprising (vs. govt) being back in the 50/60s (IIRC), I believe the People would 1) never rise up themselves on a State level 2) propel the State to buck Fedzilla 2) back the State that bucks Fedzilla (should it do so, on its own). Not since they’ll sold their own progeny into economic slavery vis-a-via S.S, MediXYZ and all the other ‘freebies’.
>
Show me a state that has better accountability to the electorate. Look just east of Missouri at Illinois.
>
That’s like saying knee deep > waist deep > nose deep in debt. You’re still IN DEBT.
Sorry, but NO State has any “GOOD” accountability to the electorate. Gravy union contracts (teachers, police, fire, pols), graft\theft (govt contracts\projects), Socialism out the wazzoo (welfare, crony Capitalism, etc.)
Again, a Bal. Budge A. only mean govt *HAS* to raise taxes (w/ a *wink wink* and crocodile tear); it doesn’t require govt to CUT spending. “Well, The People want ABC...XYZ, so we HAVE to raise taxes to pay for it all”.
NEVER will one hear from *any* govt official: “If you want it YOU’LL have to pay for it, personally.”
>
I’m not arguing with u about a balanced budget. I’m just looking at it from the real world of politicians giving voters what they want. Hell most ppl want the dreamers to stay, most ppl think denying ppl for pre-existing medical conditions is bad. The majority vote based on their feelings, without any idea or care that things cost money and somewhere, somebody is going to pay the cost.
>
There’s a WORLD of difference between ‘what people want’ and a our, supposed, Constitutional Republic, let alone vs. ‘the law’.
Why not just do away w/ the facade as NONE of them are valid anymore (unless govt wants to make an example)? Neither consulted, adhered but selectively enforced.
As other have noted, you want to People to *care*?? Sent ‘em the bill (don’t forget to add the kids in too). Make EVERY SINGLE PERSON pay their share.
THEN, and only the, will you see the shift
>
If I understand you clearly, you’re stating that a BBA may or may not actually mean what most people think.
You could raise taxes to balance the budget, but most folks wouldn’t see that as meeting the spirit of the law.
>
Isnt’ that the definition of a pol\lawyer: Using the spirit of the letter to violate the letter of the law?
Most folks don’t know their ass from their elbows, only constantly “want, want, want”, and pols all too eager to violate law\Rights to ‘make it happen’ (while lining their own pockets).
>
What I was trying to convey earlier is that after years of folks spending like a drunken Democrat, we can’t place a Conservative in there and have them simply refuse to pay our bills because we want to stop deficit spending.
It takes time, and would necessitate increased federal revenue, reduced federal spending, and more fiscal responsibility over time.
>
Note, I said nothing about NOT paying our bills. There is a YUGE difference between a VALID dept and one that is not.
>
I submit it can be done, but not with two party leaderships fighting the only man with a real plan.
>
Perhaps the issue w/ the mistaken impression there are only 2 valid viewpoints (R\D). I contend, though, not many here are willing to open their eyes/ears TOO greatly in that regard though (IMO, they enjoy living in battered-wife-syndrome).
>
He can’t cut taxes on his own, sparking the economy and facilitating massive increases in jobs for the nation’s citizens. We can’t blame him if he can’t make a sharp impact on welfare outlays if Congress gets timid.
>
No. Technically, the Pres. has VERY little power. You’d never know that from Congress or Zero\Hillary\Clinton or even the Bush’s.
>
As a man that voted for Trump, I know what is going on here. If Republican and Democrat leadership think they’re getting away with something, I’ve got news for them!
>
Correct: You believe you know what’s going on here. But, IMO, if you think there will be any major ‘backlash’, I’m afraid you (others) are sorely mistaken; especially with 90%+ re-election rates.
If I’m wrong, I’d like to hear who ran for ‘leadership’ (and the votes tallied). There shows how much ‘change’ is meaningful in D.C.
>
As far as I am concerned, the Republican party is dead to me.
There is a problem here though. It would be worse with a Democrat Congress. We can’t lose our heads here and not vote, or vote for Democrats.
>
Again, the incorrect belief that there exists ONLY two choices...
>
The primaries are the time to rid ourselves of RINOs, and if we don’t get organized and do it in 2018, we don’t deserve to have our nation returned to sound fiscal policy
>
Just how silent in consent is the Party there days? Yet, still willing to pull the lever, thinking the choice is ‘ours’?? Who’s ‘turn’ will it be from the masters? Another Dole/McCain/Romney?
Whomever your party puts up, I wish you luck. As an outsider, all I see if a stacked deck.
Did the President we have previously supported, Donald Trump just prove that he has no brains whatsoever?
No debt ceiling ensures that the financial future of the United States is soon include a worthless dollar.....
The destiny of US Treasury Bonds is that of toilet paper....Very unsettling
Missouri has no debt. No debt.
Schumer is no gentleman, and the idea of this agreement is ipso fatso insanity, for all the reasons you mention and more. The fear of this “agreement” might bring some of the Republicans around, just like picking up a hitchiker and suddenly going 90 mph at an overpass supporter will wake up the hitchiker, provided you put on the brakes at the last minute. But the agreement itself , if entered into, is madness.
What Trump realizes is that the vote to raise the debt ceiling is nothing more than a “show vote” to allow crony capitalists (both D and R) to appear concerned about the debt level, when really they are not.
Note that the debt ceiling always gets raised. The whole thing is just for show.
Legislatures facing tough primaries or reelections are given permission by party leaders to make a show of opposing it to show constituents how deficit conscious they are. Meanwhile, they always make sure their is a majority with safe seats to raise the debt ceiling.
The justification is “to keep government services from being shut down”.
So it not only provides cover for big spender Dems and RINOs who occasionally need to appear fiscally conservative, it is also an opportunity to publicly tout the importance of government services and fear-monger about how essential they are.
Why should Trump provide cover for big spending crony capitalists (swamp creatures) by allowing this sham vote to repeat itself over and over?
I say get rid of it. It’s Kabuki theatre.
Only one thing can reduce debt or prevent deficits - reduce government spending. Period.
A debt ceiling supposedly enforced by the same swamp creatures who authorize the spending? Really?
Trump is the smartest POTUS we’ve had in a real long time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.