The Debt Ceiling Countdown 2023: A US Constitutional Crisis?

Which specific Democratic policies don’t you like?


Yeah, yes that’s true.

That said, you’re completely on the Democrat’s side here. You just don’t want to be.

I think? Nick is:
Mixed on abortion rights?
Against spending on global warming?
Strongly against college debt forgiveness stuff?
Strongly against open(er) border policies.
Mixed on LGBTQ stuff.
In favor of the R. pro-Christian stuff.
Against most entitlement spending (though I’ve also heard him be pro-medicaid?)
Disinterested on guns.

That’s my vague guess.

I know he can answer for himself, but this is a fun game.

I’m pro life, I would not continue expanding social safety nets, I don’t think there should be a minimum wage, I am for school choice programs, I don’t think trans kids should be allowed to get surgeries or hormone therapy till they’re at least 18, I think corporate tax rates should be 0 not higher those are some pretty big ones.


These two statements seem wildly inconsistent to me.


How so?

I see the stance of “not using public money to fund abortions” as being completely cromulent with “not expanding social safety nets”.

Of course, there are a ton more items around “social safety nets” that could make it easy to demonize someone making such a statement w/o clarification of the types of social safety nets they’re not supporting (when they’re likely on board with supporting a bunch of other social safety nets).

I guess I see pro-life extending past conception to birth.

Still not sure what, exactly, you’re getting at. Funding the cost for providing child birth?

Maybe I think we do enough already?

1 Like

But the questions that’ll arise are going to be:

  1. Doing enough for whom?
  2. What disparate impact results from current <social net of interest> that still need to be addressed?

That’s the confusing part for me. Your stance on abortion s a pretty clear indicator that you are a proponent of Natural Law theory. E.g. there is a moral basis for laws. I further speculate your moral code aligns with Judaeo Christian principles. Which is how it gets hard to connect with the second stance. The code you adhere to is pretty explicit on what constitutes a sufficient effort to help others. The charity is not limited by what you feel is reasonable or even effective. The phrase “give til it hurts” comes to mind. So it does seem a bit inconsistent in that regard.

1 Like

Perhaps it already hurts. :slight_smile: I am quite sure there is not an explicit amount or percentage set.
There is also the specific “those who will not work should not eat” that Christians have in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 (and preceding). I think there is a lot of room for debate as well as self-reflection as to how much is appropriate. Then there are some who believe having the government do it by compulsion is different than doing it voluntarily. There are also reasonable concerns about taxes being used for what you consider immoral. In short, how much should one pay in taxes (presuming they have a say in tax policy) is a question that doesn’t have a simple answer.

I don’t expect the world to adhere to Judeo Christian principals. Also I’m not sure how forcing the government to support (more) people on my behalf is a charitable act for me.

My opposition to abortion is basically that killing our future to protect people from the inconvenience of raising children is a pretty miserable state for a society to get in. It’s short termism to the max. No society based on those principals will last very long.

I’d rather you just say that it’s wrong. The idea that the government needs to imprison innocent people to create long-term growth is creepy af.

1 Like

I get it. The second paragraph is pretty much straight out of the philosophy of Natural Law Theory. Logic and reason play a big part in how the law should operate in that mode of thought.

The first part is where I stumble. The charity never was for you. And it isn’t termed charity if you expect a quid pro quo. So the “for me” is a head scratcher.

I suspect it has something to do with collective versus personal efforts, but I can’t quite tease out the distinction. Are actions immoral as an individual action but moral as a collective? It is a knotty problem. E.g. we don’t see the prison guards at a state penitentiary as acting immorally, but we do if it’s an individual locking up another person in their basement. Effectively, the same action.different moral codes, I guess.

It boils down to religious indoctrination as a child via schools with a heavy amount of religious influence (both internal and external).

The “collective” needs to follow the views of the religious leaders. The individual folks cannot stray too far from that path. When children are raised in this way it molds their morals and values about how they see the world. When you ask someone in this situation to explain their views in a rational and logical manner they find it hard to do so even if they are educated.

Being anti-abortion and having odd “logic” about it points to the points above.

But then you are also dealing with an “us vs them” situation when it comes to social safety nets. This part is less to do about religion, and more to do about not wanting other groups to benefit from your work via the taxes that you pay. This part is more Republican from what I can see.

I assume its tough to be an objective person with religious and Republican views right now due to how crazy the religious Rs have become in the last 20 years.

1 Like

It’s not surprising that children struggle with questions that plagued philosophers down through the ages. These are really hard topics.

We all have to make hard choices. Do you lie to aid your boss at work, either by omission or otherwise? Or do you so value the truth that you harm your own career prospects. Not easy stuff.
For those of faith, this can be particularly difficult. If you are a vegetarian, by choice, as a matter of conviction, then I applaud you. That does not mean I will support your efforts to make vegetarianism the law of the land. I understand you find my carnivorous habits appalling. But using the state to enforce what might even be a great idea…none for me, thanks.
Nick is very consistent in his convictions. I would not want anyone to think he is insincere. It’s just really really hard to find a stance when the law appears to be in opposition to your faith’s tenets. While it is tempting to generalize about how much hypocrisy many American Christians appear to exhibit, it doesn’t automatically follow that all Christians are hypocrites.
It’s always tough to separate church and state, imo.


I think Nick means that “forcing the government” is not charitable act accredited to him, or is not his personal charitable action. I don’t think “for me” means he is the recipient of the charity.

1 Like

The “you” is congress and the president, and Rs have been in the thick of that.

The most recent budget is not the only reason we have a big debt. It’s been a pattern of raising spending and lowering taxes for many years. Remember the tax cut of 2017 that was followed a few months later by a spending increase? That tax cut is still with us.

In 2022, the Ds could push stuff through with a narrow majority in the House and Senate. That House majority now belongs to the Rs. They have negotiating power with the 2024 budget.