Robert Reich
@RBReich

Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal debt.
It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already taken on.
Know the truth.

On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
> Robert Reich
> @RBReich
>
> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal debt.
> It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already taken on.
> Know the truth.

...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.

On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> Robert Reich
>> @RBReich
>>
>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>> taken on. Know the truth.
>
>  ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>

Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?

On 1/21/2023 11:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> Robert Reich
>>> @RBReich
>>>
>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>
>>   ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>
>
> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?

I'd imagine the vast majority of them have "other income". Meanwhile,
though I grant that the simplification is logical, it may be that the
only way to break a vicious circle is to smash it where it's weakest.

On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> Robert Reich
>>> @RBReich
>>>
>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>
>>   ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>
>
> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>
I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
journalist should ask them after they have forced a government shutdown?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <tqh45n$2lq87$1@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
wrote:

> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
> > On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >> Robert Reich
> >> @RBReich
> >>
> >> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
> >> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
> >> taken on. Know the truth.
> >
> >  ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
> >
>
> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?

On the other hand, what's the point of even having a debt ceiling if
you're supposed to automatically raise it whenever you get close? Why
not just get rid of it altogether and eliminate its constant use as a
political football?

In article <tqh76b$2m91v$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> > On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
> >> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
> >>> Robert Reich
> >>> @RBReich
> >>>
> >>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
> >>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
> >>> taken on. Know the truth.
> >>
> >>   ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
> >>
> >
> > Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
> > with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
> > realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
> >
> I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
> journalist should ask them after they have forced a government shutdown?

When the government shuts down, they'll still get paid. I always did.
You just don't get paid while the government is shut down. After it
opens up again, you get all the pay you earned for working during the
shutdown.

In article <tqgf54$19kl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, gmsingh@email.com wrote:

>Robert Reich
>
>Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal debt.
>It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already taken on.
>Know the truth.

Oh, the irony! Whoever gave Robert Reicht those awards might want to
seriously consider taking them back. This man's ignorance is embarassing.

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <tqh45n$2lq87$1@dont-email.me>, suzee@imbris.com wrote:
>On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:

>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>
>>  ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>
> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?

No, Suzique, that is NOT what it's like and no, everyone gets paid
regardless.

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <tqh76b$2m91v$2@dont-email.me>, dtravel@sonic.net wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:

>>>> Robert Reich
>>>>
>>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>>
>>> ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>
>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>
>I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
>journalist should ask them after they have forced a government shutdown?

I am sure they have and will in the future, just like every time this
happens. You do understand the government "shuts down" every weekend,
right?

--
Let's go Brandon!

pwallace@moviepig.com wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 11:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:

>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>
>I'd imagine the vast majority of them have "other income". Meanwhile,
>though I grant that the simplification is logical, it may be that the
>only way to break a vicious circle is to smash it where it's weakest.

Literary legendermain noted.
Nonresponse noted.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:03:23 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <tqh76b$2m91v$2@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> > On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> >> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> >>> Robert Reich
>> >>> @RBReich
>> >>>
>> >>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>> >>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>> >>> taken on. Know the truth.
>> >>
>> >>   ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>> > with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>> > realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>> >
>> I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
>> journalist should ask them after they have forced a government shutdown?
>
>When the government shuts down, they'll still get paid. I always did.
>You just don't get paid while the government is shut down. After it
>opens up again, you get all the pay you earned for working during the
>shutdown.

The problem being that while most of the Congress critters are
independently wealthy, the rest of the government employees aren't.
Many can't go for months without pay even if they will eventually get
their money.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:02:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <tqh45n$2lq87$1@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> > On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> >> Robert Reich
>> >> @RBReich
>> >>
>> >> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>> >> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>> >> taken on. Know the truth.
>> >
>> >  ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>> >
>>
>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>
>On the other hand, what's the point of even having a debt ceiling if
>you're supposed to automatically raise it whenever you get close? Why
>not just get rid of it altogether and eliminate its constant use as a
>political football?

Because they lose that political football that they can play with to
try and get some concession.

On 1/21/2023 10:45 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:03:23 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <tqh76b$2m91v$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Reich
>>>>>> @RBReich
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>>>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>>>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>   ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>>>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>>>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
>>> journalist should ask them after they have forced a government shutdown?
>>
>> When the government shuts down, they'll still get paid. I always did.
>> You just don't get paid while the government is shut down. After it
>> opens up again, you get all the pay you earned for working during the
>> shutdown.
>
> The problem being that while most of the Congress critters are
> independently wealthy, the rest of the government employees aren't.
> Many can't go for months without pay even if they will eventually get
> their money.
>
Many of the new house members are not wealthy yet though. They really
need that paycheck if the government shuts down, not whenever they pass
the bill.

On 1/21/2023 10:46 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:02:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <tqh45n$2lq87$1@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>> Robert Reich
>>>>> @RBReich
>>>>>
>>>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>>>
>>>>  ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>>
>> On the other hand, what's the point of even having a debt ceiling if
>> you're supposed to automatically raise it whenever you get close? Why
>> not just get rid of it altogether and eliminate its constant use as a
>> political football?
>
> Because they lose that political football that they can play with to
> try and get some concession.
>
And blame it on a president of the opposite party come election time.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:02:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <tqh45n$2lq87$1@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> > On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> >> Robert Reich
>> >> @RBReich
>> >>
>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>
>On the other hand, what's the point of even having a debt ceiling if
>you're supposed to automatically raise it whenever you get close? Why
>not just get rid of it altogether and eliminate its constant use as a
>political football?

That's the $64,000 question.

It's the functional equivalent of a parent screaming at their kids
"this is the last time I'm telling you it's the last time!!"

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 10:45 AM, shawn wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:03:23 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <tqh76b$2m91v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>> Robert Reich
>>>>>>> @RBReich
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>>>>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>>>>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>>>>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>>>>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
>>>> journalist should ask them after they have forced a government shutdown?
>>>
>>> When the government shuts down, they'll still get paid. I always did.
>>> You just don't get paid while the government is shut down. After it
>>> opens up again, you get all the pay you earned for working during the
>>> shutdown.
>>
>> The problem being that while most of the Congress critters are
>> independently wealthy, the rest of the government employees aren't.
>> Many can't go for months without pay even if they will eventually get
>> their money.
>>
> Many of the new house members are not wealthy yet though. They really
> need that paycheck if the government shuts down, not whenever they pass
> the bill.

My heart bleeds for them. On my list of concerns, whether or not some
member of Congress is having personal financial issues rates pretty near
the absolute bottom.

On 1/21/2023 12:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 1/21/2023 10:45 AM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:03:23 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <tqh76b$2m91v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>> Robert Reich
>>>>>>>> @RBReich
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>>>>>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>>>>>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>>>>>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>>>>>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
>>>>> journalist should ask them after they have forced a government shutdown?
>>>>
>>>> When the government shuts down, they'll still get paid. I always did.
>>>> You just don't get paid while the government is shut down. After it
>>>> opens up again, you get all the pay you earned for working during the
>>>> shutdown.
>>>
>>> The problem being that while most of the Congress critters are
>>> independently wealthy, the rest of the government employees aren't.
>>> Many can't go for months without pay even if they will eventually get
>>> their money.
>>>
>> Many of the new house members are not wealthy yet though. They really
>> need that paycheck if the government shuts down, not whenever they pass
>> the bill.
>
> My heart bleeds for them. On my list of concerns, whether or not some
> member of Congress is having personal financial issues rates pretty near
> the absolute bottom.

My point wasn't that we should feel sorry for them, only that they don't
seem to think things through.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 12:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2023 10:45 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:03:23 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <tqh76b$2m91v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Robert Reich
>>>>>>>>> @RBReich
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>>>>>>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>>>>>>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying things
>>>>>>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>>>>>>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
>>>>>> journalist should ask them after they have forced a government shutdown?
>>>>>
>>>>> When the government shuts down, they'll still get paid. I always did.
>>>>> You just don't get paid while the government is shut down. After it
>>>>> opens up again, you get all the pay you earned for working during the
>>>>> shutdown.
>>>>
>>>> The problem being that while most of the Congress critters are
>>>> independently wealthy, the rest of the government employees aren't.
>>>> Many can't go for months without pay even if they will eventually get
>>>> their money.
>>>>
>>> Many of the new house members are not wealthy yet though. They really
>>> need that paycheck if the government shuts down, not whenever they pass
>>> the bill.
>>
>> My heart bleeds for them. On my list of concerns, whether or not some
>> member of Congress is having personal financial issues rates pretty near
>> the absolute bottom.
>
> My point wasn't that we should feel sorry for them, only that they don't
> seem to think things through.

Well that much is very true. And yet they're the ones in charge. Explains a
lot.

On 1/21/2023 12:47 PM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 12:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2023 10:45 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:03:23 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <tqh76b$2m91v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Robert Reich
>>>>>>>>> @RBReich
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>>>>>>>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>>>>>>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they even
>>>>>>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
>>>>>> journalist should ask them after they have forced a government
>>>>>> shutdown?
>>>>>
>>>>> When the government shuts down, they'll still get paid. I always did.
>>>>> You just don't get paid while the government is shut down. After it
>>>>> opens up again, you get all the pay you earned for working during the
>>>>> shutdown.
>>>>
>>>> The problem being that while most of the Congress critters are
>>>> independently wealthy, the rest of the government employees aren't.
>>>> Many can't go for months without pay even if they will eventually get
>>>> their money.
>>>>
>>> Many of the new house members are not wealthy yet though. They really
>>> need that paycheck if the government shuts down, not whenever they pass
>>> the bill.
>>
>> My heart bleeds for them. On my list of concerns, whether or not some
>> member of Congress is having personal financial issues rates pretty near
>> the absolute bottom.
>
> My point wasn't that we should feel sorry for them, only that they don't
> seem to think things through.
>
What do you expect from people who get themselves elected on the
platform "All American elections are fraudulent!"?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 1/21/2023 7:39 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 1/21/2023 12:47 PM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 1/21/2023 12:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/2023 10:45 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:03:23 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <tqh76b$2m91v$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 8:33 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 7:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/21/2023 5:35 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Robert Reich
>>>>>>>>>> @RBReich
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the
>>>>>>>>>> federal
>>>>>>>>>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>>>>>>>>>> taken on. Know the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    ...although I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "simply" here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe it can be put to them in simple terms - it's like buying
>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>> with your credit card and refusing to pay what you owe. Do they
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> realize that they won't be paid their own salaries if they do this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure some of them are not aware of that. Maybe some
>>>>>>> journalist should ask them after they have forced a government
>>>>>>> shutdown?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the government shuts down, they'll still get paid. I always did.
>>>>>> You just don't get paid while the government is shut down. After it
>>>>>> opens up again, you get all the pay you earned for working during the
>>>>>> shutdown.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem being that while most of the Congress critters are
>>>>> independently wealthy, the rest of the government employees aren't.
>>>>> Many can't go for months without pay even if they will eventually get
>>>>> their money.
>>>>>
>>>> Many of the new house members are not wealthy yet though. They really
>>>> need that paycheck if the government shuts down, not whenever they pass
>>>> the bill.
>>>
>>> My heart bleeds for them. On my list of concerns, whether or not some
>>> member of Congress is having personal financial issues rates pretty near
>>> the absolute bottom.
>>
>> My point wasn't that we should feel sorry for them, only that they
>> don't seem to think things through.
>>
> What do you expect from people who get themselves elected on the
> platform "All American elections are fraudulent!"?
>
It's the latest fad.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>On the other hand, what's the point of even having a debt ceiling if
>you're supposed to automatically raise it whenever you get close? Why
>not just get rid of it altogether and eliminate its constant use as a
>political football?

Any number of economists and experts in the federal budget have said the
same thing.

But this idiocy should have been on the last Congress. Raise the debt
ceiling first, THEN do the appropriations bills and make sure with
entitlements, it all stays under the debt ceiling.

I'm just holding my breath for all those spending reformers in Congress
to present a balanced budget for fiscal 2024.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 22:43:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>>. . .
>
>>On the other hand, what's the point of even having a debt ceiling if
>>you're supposed to automatically raise it whenever you get close? Why
>>not just get rid of it altogether and eliminate its constant use as a
>>political football?
>
>Any number of economists and experts in the federal budget have said the
>same thing.
>
>But this idiocy should have been on the last Congress. Raise the debt
>ceiling first, THEN do the appropriations bills and make sure with
>entitlements, it all stays under the debt ceiling.
>
>I'm just holding my breath for all those spending reformers in Congress
>to present a balanced budget for fiscal 2024.

I hope you've surrounded yourself with balloons or something else
inflatable to keep you from hitting the ground when you collapse from
holding your breath.

rander3128@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 January 2023 at 05:35:25 UTC-5, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Robert Reich
>>
>> Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending or the federal
>> debt. It simply allows the government to pay bills it has already
>> taken on.
>> Know the truth.
>
> The truth:
> https://www.usdebtclock.org/
>
> CUT SPENDING!

Lawmakers were hoping to prevent another government shutdown in 2018 --
but failed to reach a deal by midnight on Dec. 22. As a result, the
federal government witnessed its longest shutdown in history.

The government has now shut down a total of 21 times since Congress
introduced the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which
established the federal budget process in 1976. Half of those shutdowns
occurred over a weekend.

"I call them 'fake shutdowns,'" Marc Goldwein, senior policy director
of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget - a bipartisan,
nonprofit organization that educates the public on fiscal policy issues
- told Fox News. "Most shutdowns occur over the course of a weekend.
We're talking days or weeks - not months."

But there have been a handful of lengthy U.S. government shutdowns.
According to data from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), seven
shutdowns in the past four decades lasted more than 10 days.

On Jan. 12, the government reached its 22-day mark, breaking the record
for the longest shutdown in U.S. history. The previous record-holder
occurred during the Clinton administration in the winter of 1995 to
1996 when former President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress
were at odds and shut the government down for a total of 21 days. The
third occurred during the Obama administration in 2013. A stalemate
between the House and Senate led to a 16-day hiatus.

Here is a look back at every government shutdown in the history of the
U.S.

President Gerald Ford
When: Thursday, Sept. 30 to Monday, Oct. 10, 1976

Duration (full days): 10 days

The first partial shutdown occurred under Gerald Ford's presidency when
Ford vetoed a $56 billion spending bill for the Departments of Labor
and Health, Education and Welfare, according to a 1976 report from The
New York Times.

This was the year the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act
became law, allowing Congress to take an extension, known as a
continuing resolution (CR).

President Jimmy Carter
When: Friday, Sept. 30 to Thursday, Oct. 13, 1977

Duration (full days): 12 days

When: Monday, Oct. 31 to Wednesday, Nov. 9, 1977

Duration (full days): 8 days

When: Wednesday, Nov. 30 to Friday, Dec. 9, 1977

Duration (full days): 8 days

There were three shutdowns, referred to as the "abortion shutdowns," in
the late 1970s under the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The Democratic
party may have dominated both the House and the Senate, but they
couldn't get Republicans on board when it came to using Medicaid to pay
for abortions.

When: Saturday, Sept. 30 to Wednesday, Oct. 18, 1978

Duration (full days): 17 days

In 1978, Carter vetoed a $37 billion defense authorization bill, which
included a $2 billion nuclear-powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier --
equipment he didn't consider essential to national security, The
Washington Post reported. This led to the second largest shutdown in
the history of the nation.

When: Sunday, Sept. 30 to Friday, Oct. 12, 1979

Duration (full days): 11 days

Another funding gap took place a year later when the House and Senate
disagreed over raising pay by 5.5 percent for members of Congress and
senior civil servants, The Washington Post reported. And there was yet
again another debate over abortion funding.

President Ronald Reagan
When: Friday, Nov. 20 to Monday, Nov. 23, 1981

Duration (full days): 2 days

President Ronald Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it didn't make
enough cuts.

When: Thursday, Sept. 30 to Saturday, Oct. 2, 1982

Duration (full days): 1 day

The government shut down for one day when Congress failed to pass the
spending bill on time.

When: Friday, Dec. 17 to Tuesday, Dec., 21, 1982

Duration (full days): 3 days

Both the House and Senate wanted to increase public works spending in
order to create more jobs -- a move Reagan opposed. The House also
opposed MX missile funding, which, The Washington Post noted, was a
"major defense priority" of Reagan's.

When: Thursday, Nov. 10 to Monday, Nov. 14, 1983

Duration (full days): 3 days

Reagan argued over the Democratic-controlled House's proposed foreign
aid and spending cuts and their plea for an increase in funding for
education. At the same time, Reagan was pushing for more funding for
the MX missile.

Eventually, both parties reached an agreement.

When: Sunday, Sept. 30 to Wednesday, Oct. 3, 1984

Duration (full days): 2 days

In short, Reagan agreed to the House's proposed crime-fighting package,
but he opposed their water projects package.

"Reagan offered to forgo his crime bill in exchange for junking the
water package...but a deal wasn't reached in time to avoid a brief
shutdown," The Washington Post reported.

When: Wednesday, Oct. 3 to Friday, Oct. 5, 1984

Duration (full days): 1 day

Lawmakers reportedly needed another day to discuss the spending bill.

When: Thursday, Oct. 16 to Saturday, Oct. 18, 1986

Duration (full days): 1 day

The Democratic-controlled House was once again in disagreement with
Reagan and the Republican-controlled Senate. This time, over a welfare
package deal.

When: Friday, Dec. 18 to Sunday, Dec. 20, 1987

Duration (full days): 1 day

Reagan and Democrats couldn't agree on funding for Nicaraguan "Contra"
militants. Democrats also pushed to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine,"
which required licensed broadcasters to give equal air time for people
with competing political points of view.

President George H.W. Bush
When: Friday, Oct. 5 to Tuesday, Oct. 9, 1990

Duration (full days): 3 days

Only one shutdown took place during George H.W. Bush's presidency. It
occurred in October 1990 after Bush vetoed a stopgap spending bill, The
New York Times reported at the time.

But the timing was right. The shutdown happened over Columbus Day
weekend and most federal workers were already off for the holiday.

President Bill Clinton
When: Monday, Nov. 13 to Sunday, Nov. 19, 1995

Duration (full days): 5 days

President Bill Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution in November 1995
over Medicare premium increases.

"The government is partially shutting down because Congress has failed
to pass the straightforward legislation necessary to keep the
government running without imposing sharp hikes in Medicare premiums
and deep cuts in education and the environment," Clinton said during an
address on Nov. 14, 1995.

When: Friday, Dec. 15, 1995, to Saturday, Jan. 6, 1996

Duration (full days): 21 days

It's the second longest shutdown in U.S. history: 21 days.

The government shut down after Clinton vetoed the spending bill
proposed by the Republican-controlled Congress.

After a long three weeks, the president and Congress agreed to a
seven-year budget plan, which included "modest spending cuts and tax
increases," according to research by the Regional Oral History Office
at the University of California, Berkeley.

President Barack Obama
When: Monday, Sept. 30 to Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013

Duration (full days): 16 days

Seventeen years later, the government shut down once again. Lawmakers
couldn't come to an agreement on the Affordable Care Act, also known as
Obamacare, in 2013.

The House passed several versions of the bill to fund the government.
But each time, the Senate sent it back.

"This is an unnecessary blow to America," Harry Reid, the Senate
Democratic leader at the time, said of the shutdown.

John Boehner, the House speaker during the shutdown, said Republicans
were fighting to keep the government open, but the Senate "continued to
reject our offers."

President Donald Trump
Trump to address farmers as longest government shutdown sees no end in
WashingtonVideo
When: Saturday, Jan. 20 to Monday, Jan. 22, 2018

Duration (full days): 3 days

When it comes to immigration and spending, President Donald Trump and
Republican lawmakers and Democrats were divided.

Republicans controlled the Senate but they still needed 60 votes to
break a filibuster.

"When you only have 51 votes in the Senate, then you have to have
Democrat support in order to keep the government -- to fund the
government," OMB Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters during a White
House press briefing Friday.

Democrats said from the beginning that they'd reject any deal that
didn't include a legislative fix for the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) program, an Obama-era program, which offers protection
for immigrants -- also known as "Dreamers" -- who came into the U.S.
illegally as minors.