Health bill disaster

[Madison320]

Next step, replacing Trump.

If you thought this was bad, wait for the debt ceiling fight in a few months.

...FYI, freedom caucus IS NOT going to be folding to the Dem-In-Chief on that either.

I've been wondering what is going to happen with the debt ceiling ever since the election. My guess is that they quickly re-suspend it.

 

[specsaregood]

I've been wondering what is going to happen with the debt ceiling ever since the election. My guess is that they quickly re-suspend it.

I predict that they completely eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling saying that it is outdated, antiquated and unnecessary.

 

[merkelstan]

Why oh why is it that when a terrible bill becomes law, instead of repealing it, they just go on to change it to another terrible bill and hope to pass it?

Exactly.

My dad had an idea back in the '80s - "We need another arm of government - a Congress that only exists to repeal laws."

 

[Dr.3D]

Exactly.

My dad had an idea back in the '80s - "We need another arm of government - a Congress that only exists to repeal laws."

Of course that can't happen, because that would be against what they are trying to do. They eventually want to have everything against the law.

 

[Madison320]

I predict that they completely eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling saying that it is outdated, antiquated and unnecessary.

They're getting closer. The last 3 times they've suspended it instead of raising it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I predict that they completely eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling saying that it is outdated, antiquated and unnecessary.

Sooner or later, they will. And they'll be right ...

The so-called "debt ceiling" has never been anything but an irrelevant bit of diversionary fluff.

After all, what can the concept of a "debt ceiling" possibly mean when they can conjure money into existence just by typing some numbers into a computer?

 

[Superfluous Man]

He's a globalist, who prefers Mexican nationals to his own countrymen, in the United States.

Not necessarily. He could be an honest broker and prefer neither. You act like there's something wrong with that. And, like I said, the fact that you do tells us more about you than him.

 

[jmdrake]

Thread winner.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Sooner or later, they will. And they'll be right ...

The so-called "debt ceiling" has never been anything but an irrelevant bit of diversionary fluff.

After all, what can the concept of a "debt ceiling" possibly mean when they can conjure money into existence just by typing some numbers into a computer?

The debt ceiling is valuable insofar as it allows one house, or the president, to kill otherwise "mandatory" spending.

...not this House, not this Senate, not this President, but some at some point.

There are few issues more important for posterity; fiscal conservatives should be ready to die on this hill.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The debt ceiling is valuable insofar as it allows one house, or the president, to kill otherwise "mandatory" spending.

...not this House, not this Senate, not this President, but some at some point.

'The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam today."

There are few issues more important for posterity; fiscal conservatives should be ready to die on this hill.

If fiscal conservatives (so called) should by dying, it should be on the hill of something like commodity standards derived and enforced by markets - and certainly not on the hill of gimmicks for the preservation and promotion of the pretense that a fiat system can be constrained and managed responsibly.

There would be little or no need for contrivances such as "debt ceilings" under commodity money standards, because such standards would inherently limit the State's capacity to spend. States implement and enforce fiat systems precisely in order to get around such limitations in the first place. The post hoc bolting of poor and toothless imitations of those constraints onto the edifice of fiat is like installing smoke alarms without batteries after the house has already caught fire ...

 

[r3volution 3.0]

There would be little or no need for contrivances such as "debt ceilings" under commodity money standards, because such standards would inherently limit the State's capacity to spend.

Of course, but we don't have a commodity money standard.

If we want to push Congressmen to implement one, great.

We can simultaneously push them to cut spending via the debt ceiling.

...not mutually exclusive.

 

[CPUd]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/847881709056126976

 

[Occam's Banana]

Of course, but we don't have a commodity money standard.

Which is precisely why any "political capital" we have would be better spent upon trying to create an environment congenial to allowing markets to establish such standards, rather than upon stop-gap "kick the can" bandages such as "debt ceilings" (or "balanced budgets" or etc.). The latter can only serve to (1) preserve the putative viability and extend the lifetime of the fiat standard that we currently do have, and (2) reinforce the illusion that fiat standards can somehow be responsibly managed and limited.

The fundament of fiat standards, after all, is the evasion of such responsibilities and limitations. It is deleterious to further enable the continuation of those fundamental evasions.

If we want to push Congressmen to implement one, great.

We can simultaneously push them to cut spending via the debt ceiling.

...not mutually exclusive.

I didn't say that they are mutually exclusive.

They are mutually counterproductive, however ...

As I said in a previous post, a so-called "debt ceiling" in the context of a fiat standard is "an irrelevant bit of diversionary fluff." It is an exercise in installing smoke alarms after the house is already on fire.

Our political resources are scarce, and as intimated in the part of my statement you elided in your quote of me, it would be wiser not to waste those resources by dividing them between "bolting [...] poor and toothless [...] constraints onto the edifice of fiat" (on the one hand) and working to promote and establish genuine market-based standards (on the other hand).

Effort expended upon the one is effort that cannot be expended upon the other - and to the extent that either effort "works," it works to the detriment of the other. If, for example, a gimmicky "debt ceiling" (or "balanced budget" or etc.) is ever actually efficacious in achieving its ostensible goals (an outcome of which I am in any case profoundly skeptical), it would serve only to treat a symptom - thereby making the underlying disease that much more bearable, and in the same degree diminishing the impetus for any genuine cure. ("Look! it's working! We can get away with it! We don't need no stinkin' market-based commodity standards ...")