Democrats own this debt limit hike — don't bail them out!

Washington Examiner ^ | September 27, 2021 | Washington Examiner

[Texan4Life]

In fact, if Democrats so desired, they could have easily raised the debt limit back in March, when they passed their first $1.9 trillion spending spree. But they didn’t, and now they are begging for Republicans to bail them out politically for their own borrow-and-spend ways. Republicans should refuse.

[Texan4Life]

Tax and Spend Dems.

[JParris]

Pubs should refuse.

But they won’t. They will cave.

The hand wringing rinos don’t want the MSM to think they are mean.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

Tax and Spend Dems

Because the Republicans don't tax and spend when they control the votes?

[blackdog]

"The last time Congress passed all 12 appropriations bills was 2006, but a lot of heavy lifting was done in supplementals and resolution in both houses was not complete until May.

The whole process has been a mess since 2001 and it honestly never worked all that great since the establishment of sequestration in 1985 with the passage of Graham-Rudman-Hollings. Sequestration rules were impractical at best and silly at more than one juncture, which broke discipline in both houses."

Pick your brand of liars and thieves, same all.

20 years of porkulus bills is disgusting and if nobody is to ever be held accountable we get what we deserve.

[mad_as_he$$]

Spot on. Thank you for the reminder.

[meyer]

Just say no to raising the limit.

Time to cut spending drastically. And they can start by not giving anything free to illegal “migrants” and other enemy combatants.

[blackdog]

Let's bring back the balanced budget bill back to congress. One better would be to ratify it into the U.S. Constitution.

You know, like how most states are required to do? (at least the ones that function within their means)

No more porkulus bills. Every spending item is debated, listed, and voted on. If they don't meet the deadline it's last year's spending level minus 10%. No Omnibus fake spending crisis to provide cover. Do stuff like that and the State Department will misplace $500 Billion dollars and not even feel like they need to explain? Oh.....Wait. That really happens. Never mind then.

Remember the old timey days when congress knew they were supposed to be in charge of appropriations bills and not what dossiers said what about who has a urine fetish or who's lives matter more than who's?

[joma89]

But the RINOs will help them just like they always do.

[DoodleDawg]

Tax and Spend Dems.

As opposed to don't tax and still spend Republicans? Neither side is interested in controlling the size and spending of government so both sides own this.

[Drago]

Yep, “tax and spend” would not require a debt limit increase. GOP “spend and not increase taxes” ironically requires more debt. The GOP is currently just the “slower road to hell”.

[central_va]

Yep, “tax and spend” would not require a debt limit increase. GOP “spend and not increase taxes” ironically requires more debt. The GOP is currently just the “slower road to hell”.

Wrong, cutting taxes always increases revenue. It is just common sense or the Laffer Curve.

[central_va]

Cutting taxes INCREASES REVENUE.

[central_va]

Anyone not behind a really high import tariff is not a serious “deficit hawk” who really wants to fix things.

[Drago]

Depends on which side of the Laffer curve you are on. And the need the raise the debt ceiling now after the Trump tax cuts might indicate we are still on the “front side”.

[central_va]

In a tariff based tax system, people are only taxed if they purchase foreign made goods. If you’re in Canada there are province to province tariffs also, so that’s an additional potential tax that consumers would pay however here’s the kicker when it comes to tariff taxes. The actual tax is paid by the businesses and then passed onto the consumers. Which in real terms equates to the consumers having a choice to pay or not to pay the tax.

Tariffs vs. Income Taxes – Which tax is better?

[central_va]

OMG how preposterous!!! Nobody thinks we are to the left side of the Laffer curve inflection point. LOL!!!!

[DoodleDawg]

Cutting taxes INCREASES REVENUE.

Then cut them to zero. The government will be rolling in money then. </sarcasm>

[central_va]

Then cut them to zero. The government will be rolling in money then.

The raise them to 100% then the government will be rolling in money. /sarcasm

This idea ( common senses really ) of Laffer is not to cut to zero but cut until you hit the inflection point. If you need "inflection point" explained to you I will do that upon request. I do not think you understand basic math.

[Drago]

If we are on the right side of the “peak”of the Laffer curve further tax cuts may increase revenue some, but the extra revenue has no chance of outpacing spending/unfunded liabilities/interest on the debt. Just like the increased revenue from the Trump tax cuts (~$500 billion over 4 years) did not outpace the increased spending during that time period (several trillion $$).

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

[DoodleDawg]

The raise them to 100% then the government will be rolling in money. /sarcasm

Is that you recommended tariff rate?

This idea ( common senses really ) of Laffer is not to cut to zero but cut until you hit the inflection point.

Ah but the question is whether we're to the left or the right of the rate where tax revenues are maximized. Your blanket claim that lowering taxes will increase revenue ignores that.

If you need "inflection point" explained to you I will do that upon request.

And if you need the Laffer curve explained to you I'll be glad to do the same.

I do not think you understand basic math.

I'm not sure you understand basic economics.