They can’t have it both ways imo. If they’re reaping the benefits of it, then they should acknowledge it’s good and should be in place. That’s blatantly not the case though.

I personally would prefer if we continue to support these people since plenty of the people living in those states are not voting against their own self-interest. Imo, caring people living in the deep red or deep blue states should move to more purple districts in purple states to help move the country as a whole to be more caring politically.

I think blue states should also move to implement more safety nets on their own instead of waiting for a blue supermajority federally. If people see how their state and local government can work for them, they’d be more likely to want those policies in their own states. States by that same token should be willing to go into debt to fund long running infrastructure and policies that will be value adds to the state and residents living there.

How is it redundant?

Great, the government is committed to funding the bill, then they should increase taxes to fund the bill.

We should only be incurring debt in specific situations where there is a long run value add. I’m not saying we should be cutting spending at all, but we should be funding our spending by increasing taxes on corporations.

I don’t see the issue with having a separate vote in these situations which should be uncommon, where you are not able to fund the spending because it’s for one of the specific costs that add values to our society.

I agree that private sector budgeting doesn’t operate in the same way as public budgeting, but at a certain point in future it will start chipping at the value of the dollar if our nation is not able to pay off its interest on the debt. My point is that we should be taxing corporations more to fund the spending.

Edit: I don’t see what’s controversial about this take, what’s wrong with just funding the bill?

I would say it would only be irrational in the long run if we are not making a plan to increase taxes to go along with the increased costs, at least for costs which don’t have a value add later down the line. If X amount is what it will cost to pay everything then we should increase taxes on corporations to be able to collect at minimum X amount, if not more.

I still don’t think increasing the country’s debt should be the first choice, increasing taxes should be the first choice when the spending bill shows we would be spending more than we would be taking in. I’m not sure if they can show they want to increase taxes at the same time on that bill in not, but increasing taxes to cover the additional spending is important.

I do agree that the country even being able to be shut down is a major problem. I would say a shut down does hurt Republican voters more, but Democrat politicians care about their constituents.

It really doesn’t make a ton of sense for either party to get rid of the filibuster at this current point in time. If Democrats won big in 2024 then I believe they should have gotten rid of the filibuster, but they didn’t win big. They needed to win the swing states and at least gain an extra seat or two in the Senate but that didn’t happen. They could have expanded the House under such a situation so it is really unfortunate that did not occur. The main hope now is for Democrats to pick up seats in the midterms and in 2028 to try to make up some of the losses.

Really, anyone that wants to see positive change stick should consider moving to purple states and purple districts from their deep red state/deep blue states. If the swing states became solid blue states then we would have a much easier time passing legislation that is beneficial.

The debt ceiling is used that way by Republicans for the most part. They don’t want to increase taxes even for corporations, but they try to force a budget resolution by cutting spending when there really is only so much you can cut without hurting people.

The debt ceiling is a reminder that there is a cost to the money we spend, I personally believe we are still far from it being an issue but we should be increasing taxes to properly allocate money for spending. Ideally you want to collect more than you spend, but some instances it makes sense to go into a steeper debt to get those tangible benefits I mentioned.

Really a shutdown should trigger elections because it just shows that the governing body can’t do their jobs.

Having a debt ceiling isn’t really the worst idea to an extent. You can reach a hypothetical point where you’re not able to realistically pay off your debt to other nations for instance. That’s why instead of raising the debt limit and weakening the dollar in the process, it makes more sense to tax corporations more to cover your country’s added expenses. There are specific things it makes sense to increase the debt limit to do though such as funding education, science and research, renewable and nuclear energy, and public transit systems as these are all value adds for a society in the long run.

The smaller caucus in their party is more closer aligned to the presidency though. A populist president would have a better chance to making progress for a smaller caucus. A small caucus in the Senate is what prevented most helpful or progressive legislation from passing as well, as seen in Manchin and Senima who are both Independents.