The 2023 Debt Ceiling Crisis

[Pyperkub]

Note that that doesn't mean that I don't think Biden has screwed up in a lot of ways, BUT you need to remember that had to do all of this while Trump was actively preventing his transition team from getting access to Military Intelligence after the election.

So - we do have a reason for Biden's worst Foreign Policy screwup - the Trump-mandated Afghanistan withdrawal in August 2021. - if you look at the NATO/Ukraine timeline - Biden had his most important people working on NATO/Ukraine in his early months (which were gimped by 2 months due to Trump's election and transition shenanigans, as was the Afghanistan withdrawal).

Given how important the NATO/Ukraine work has proven to be, I'm willing to give the Biden Administration some slack for not handling Afghanistan well - there were more urgent matters, as time as shown.

[Holman]

I can't read that post, I guess I need to be following that person.

Huh. It's high-profile pundit David Rothkopf.

[Alefroth]

I don't follow them and I can read it.

[Pyperkub]

Looks like he blocked me. Not sure why - I don't know if I've ever interacted with him, and I post about like I do here - generally trying to follow Wheaton's Law. Ah well. There's a threadreader unroll I can read if I want.

[Isgrimnur]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663 ... 72932.html

[malchior]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663 ... 72932.html

Well that spiel is at best a liberal fantasy report card and at worst has some...uh...deeply intellectually dishonest content.

Massive legislative accomplishments greater than those of any president since LBJ with the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act...

How are these accomplishments being measured? in dollars? At the very least this is taking credit without knowing the results. Some of it indeed was directionally the right direction but it's too early to know if it'll survive or pan out in the end.

He has done all this while facing the greatest national security challenges the US has faced in decades in Ukraine, with the rise of China and with the climate crisis. In each case, his response has been historic and constructive. NATO is now stronger (and larger) than ever.

Almost every President since NATO was formed could claim this. Even Trump despite trying to damage it presided over expansion of NATO. But sure whatever.

No president in his first two and a half years has created more jobs, lifted more people out of poverty, provided more investment in the jobs of tomorrow.

This is the most deeply dishonest comment of them all. The total number of jobs finally returned to pre-pandemic levels in Q1 of 2023. This is much like when Republicans slammed Obama and Biden for gas prices that happened to be low at one point in Bush or Trump's administration because of economic turmoil. This takes credit for a recovery from historical unemployment caused by the pandemic. It's bullshit.

He has completely rethought US econ policy to focus on the real economy & real people and not just on the needs of the few.

He completely rethought US econ policy? Ok sure.

Recent data has shown conclusively that under his leadership, the US has had the fastest recovery from the COVID crisis of any major economy.

Finally something that's actually true. We did better than any of our peers and they did it by helping close output gaps but that effort goes back to Trump as well. There was great continuity there that we should recognize.

At the same time, the president has taken a strong stand against the greatest security threat we face--domestic extremism.

Oh really? I'd love to hear some specifics on this one beyond the strategy they published in 2021 that pretty much has had zero impact on law enforcement priorities in the face of growth of domestic extremism.

The majority of Americans can see what he has done and is doing and stands for.

And they disapprove of it. I'm again going to say it's hardly a cult but Democrats are living in a fantasy world if they read this and nod along.

[waitingtoconnect]

It’s like the Springfield mayor election where sideshow Bob wins. The democrats are incompetent but what can you do when the other side abandoned democracy?

If people won’t vote for third parties then the malaise will continue because the two major parties have no reason to change.

[malchior]

If people won’t vote for third parties then the malaise will continue because the two major parties have no reason to change.

Without a realistic mechanism to make voting 3rd party anything but a vote against a major party candidate...it is not a real option.

[Pyperkub]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1663 ... 72932.html

Well that spiel is at best a liberal fantasy report card and at worst has some...uh...deeply intellectually dishonest content.

Massive legislative accomplishments greater than those of any president since LBJ with the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act...

How are these accomplishments being measured? in dollars? At the very least this is taking credit without knowing the results. Some of it indeed was directionally the right direction but it's too early to know if it'll survive or pan out in the end.

He has done all this while facing the greatest national security challenges the US has faced in decades in Ukraine, with the rise of China and with the climate crisis. In each case, his response has been historic and constructive. NATO is now stronger (and larger) than ever.

Almost every President since NATO was formed could claim this. Even Trump despite trying to damage it presided over expansion of NATO. But sure whatever.

No president in his first two and a half years has created more jobs, lifted more people out of poverty, provided more investment in the jobs of tomorrow.

This is the most deeply dishonest comment of them all. The total number of jobs finally returned to pre-pandemic levels in Q1 of 2023. This is much like when Republicans slammed Obama and Biden for gas prices that happened to be low at one point in Bush or Trump's administration because of economic turmoil. This takes credit for a recovery from historical unemployment caused by the pandemic. It's bullshit.

He has completely rethought US econ policy to focus on the real economy & real people and not just on the needs of the few.

He completely rethought US econ policy? Ok sure.

Recent data has shown conclusively that under his leadership, the US has had the fastest recovery from the COVID crisis of any major economy.

Finally something that's actually true. We did better than any of our peers and they did it by helping close output gaps but that effort goes back to Trump as well. There was great continuity there that we should recognize.

At the same time, the president has taken a strong stand against the greatest security threat we face--domestic extremism.

Oh really? I'd love to hear some specifics on this one beyond the strategy they published in 2021 that pretty much has had zero impact on law enforcement priorities in the face of growth of domestic extremism.

The majority of Americans can see what he has done and is doing and stands for.

And they disapprove of it. I'm again going to say it's hardly a cult but Democrats are living in a fantasy world if they read this and nod along.

Rather conveniently skipping my post(s) written for you here.... in favor of stuff I didn't even bring up.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Apollo]

I think Biden has done a pretty good job all things considered. I still can't believe he got the legislation passed that he did with the margins the Dems have had, and I give him credit for not getting too involved in some of the controversial issues favored by Left wing activists.

Biden's biggest problem is that both the Far Left and the Far Right hate his guts and they're the ones who scream the loudest. Then the General Public, which barely pays attention, hears all the ruckus and thinks "This guy must be a real Loser. Everybody hates him!"

[Kraken]

This is the lede for Heather Cox Richardson's letter today:

“[O]ne of the things that I hear some of you guys saying is, ‘Why doesn’t Biden say what a good deal it is?’” President Joe Biden said to reporters yesterday afternoon before leaving the White House on the Marine One helicopter. “Why would Biden say what a good deal it is before the vote? You think that’s going to help me get it passed? No. That’s why you guys don’t bargain very well.”

[Zarathud]

This is exactly the reason President Biden negotiated quietly. If he wanted it, the House MAGAs would have opposed it from the start.

[malchior]

Rather conveniently skipping my post(s) written for you here.... in favor of stuff I didn't even bring up.

That post wasn't a response to yours but you did pick up the spirit of why I ignored it. If you truly believe he helped avoid a war in Poland (beyond preposterous) or Taiwan (a touch less preposterous but still not especially reality based) then I felt like letting it go was the best course but let's say I agree to disagree.

Biden's biggest problem is that both the Far Left and the Far Right hate his guts and they're the ones who scream the loudest. Then the General Public, which barely pays attention, hears all the ruckus and thinks "This guy must be a real Loser. Everybody hates him!"

People says this often but I posted actual poll data showing that people disapprove his Presidency by a large margin. Similar numbers to Trump. People have to realize that our government in its wild gyrations often produces results that the majority of Americans dislike. And that's not about far left or far right.

[malchior]

This is the lede for Heather Cox Richardson's letter today:

“[O]ne of the things that I hear some of you guys saying is, ‘Why doesn’t Biden say what a good deal it is?’” President Joe Biden said to reporters yesterday afternoon before leaving the White House on the Marine One helicopter. “Why would Biden say what a good deal it is before the vote? You think that’s going to help me get it passed? No. That’s why you guys don’t bargain very well.”

There is wisdom there but that is because the press is giving him outs by asking dumb questions. Asking the coach what they're going to do in the next quarter is inherently silly and reserved for NBA courtside interviews. Asking him how he figuratively plans to win the season when he keeps making the same mistakes every game is a different matter altogether.

[Carpet_pissr]

“US debt ceiling: Republican hard-right vows to sink deal hours before vote expected”

Surprising no one, I think. Not sure if they (Freedom Caucus) have the numbers though, or if this is just bluster.

Possibly tangentially related, I still think they are collectively still traumatized/pissed at McCain’s surprise ‘thumbs down’ vote several years ago.

[Defiant]

Biden's biggest problem is that both the Far Left and the Far Right hate his guts and they're the ones who scream the loudest.

Assuming you're talking about the squad and their supporters (and not, say, Jill Stein types that would hate any Democrat), I don't think that's true. I think Biden has done a pretty good job of appealing to the different wings of the party, and I think he's largely liked by the different wings.

I think Biden's biggest problem are people's perceptions on the state of the economy.

[Kraken]

“US debt ceiling: Republican hard-right vows to sink deal hours before vote expected”

One hopes voters are paying attention, because this is exactly the kind of bluster most say they don't want.

[Kurth]

“US debt ceiling: Republican hard-right vows to sink deal hours before vote expected”

One hopes voters are paying attention, because this is exactly the kind of bluster most say they don't want.

I’m not even going to spoiler this: They’re not.

[Pyperkub]

Rather conveniently skipping my post(s) written for you here.... in favor of stuff I didn't even bring up.

That post wasn't a response to yours but you did pick up the spirit of why I ignored it. If you truly believe he helped avoid a war in Poland (beyond preposterous) or Taiwan (a touch less preposterous but still not especially reality based) then I felt like letting it go was the best course but let's say I agree to disagree.

Biden's biggest problem is that both the Far Left and the Far Right hate his guts and they're the ones who scream the loudest. Then the General Public, which barely pays attention, hears all the ruckus and thinks "This guy must be a real Loser. Everybody hates him!"

People says this often but I posted actual poll data showing that people disapprove his Presidency by a large margin. Similar numbers to Trump. People have to realize that our government in its wild gyrations often produces results that the majority of Americans dislike. And that's not about far left or far right.

I think that if Ukraine fell in days, then Putin would have taken Belarus, Georgia, Crimea and the rest of ukraine with zero consequences, and NATO would still not be united, even with 150k Russian soldiers on the polish border backed up by that 20+ mile line of tanks we saw heading for Kyiv in the first days.

I also think that Putin would still have that massive overconfidence in his military's ability.

Why do you think he would stop, given the above? After all, we would already have ignored our treaty obligations to Ukraine (again, after Crimea).



Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[malchior]

Rather conveniently skipping my post(s) written for you here.... in favor of stuff I didn't even bring up.

That post wasn't a response to yours but you did pick up the spirit of why I ignored it. If you truly believe he helped avoid a war in Poland (beyond preposterous) or Taiwan (a touch less preposterous but still not especially reality based) then I felt like letting it go was the best course but let's say I agree to disagree.

Biden's biggest problem is that both the Far Left and the Far Right hate his guts and they're the ones who scream the loudest. Then the General Public, which barely pays attention, hears all the ruckus and thinks "This guy must be a real Loser. Everybody hates him!"

People says this often but I posted actual poll data showing that people disapprove his Presidency by a large margin. Similar numbers to Trump. People have to realize that our government in its wild gyrations often produces results that the majority of Americans dislike. And that's not about far left or far right.

I think that if Ukraine fell in days, then Putin would have taken Belarus, Georgia, Crimea and the rest of ukraine with zero consequences, and NATO would still not be united, even with 150k Russian soldiers on the polish border backed up by that 20+ mile line of tanks we saw heading for Kyiv in the first days.

I also think that Putin would still have that massive overconfidence in his military's ability.

Why do you think he would stop, given the above? After all, we would already have ignored our treaty obligations to Ukraine (again, after Crimea).

Why would he stop? The potential for escalation from small arms through nuclear arms. Same answer for Taiwan. That is the ultimate reason why we have been tip toeing the entire time about what arms and what aid we provide. There is stakeholder management across NATO and with our adversaries and financial markets and ... [long list of participants] that have to contemplated. Luckily we have adults who deal with this professionally that forestall the scenarios above that aren't remotely plausible.

[Pyperkub]

All of those apply to the Ukraine invasion as well. Part of Ukraine's agreement to give up their Nukes after the Soviet break-up was an agreement to protect Ukraine. Remember that they would have had the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile in the world at the time.

Did we when Russia invaded Crimea? Nope.

Heck, per the article, we even TOLD Putin what he was risking to go into Ukraine. He did it anyways, and it hasn't gone nuclear - not even the "tactical" nukes a LOT of people seem to think would be ok (a lot of insane people, IMHO).

If Biden and the West hadn't contested (stopped? TBD) him in the rest of Ukraine, I see no reason he wouldn't have kept going, *especially* if China invaded Taiwan and we were pre-occupied there, or even half-assing it.

Sure, everyone would be trying to prevent it from going nuclear, and maybe they would be successful, but IMHO, a 2 front war in Europe and SE Asia is a World War, even if it's non-nuclear.

[Skinypupy]

Whelp...

[Pyperkub]

Whelp...

TBH, for most Republicans, that's an endorsement...

[Octavious]

What a bag of dicks. Seriously can't see how bad it would be to not sign on? Whatever.

[malchior]

All of those apply to the Ukraine invasion as well.

No. It was very different. Ukraine is not a NATO member. Ukraine is not on its own a vital strategic interest of the United States. Lend/lease and support are of import with Putin blatantly flouting the international rules based order but this was more at the symbolic level than a major degradation of strategic advantage.

In comparison, Poland is a full member of NATO. Taiwan controls a strategically vital technology that multiple members of NATO, Japan, Australia, et. al. depend on. The calculus is very different. Finland and Sweden clamored to join for this very reason.

Part of Ukraine's agreement to give up their Nukes after the Soviet break-up was an agreement to protect Ukraine. Remember that they would have had the 3rd largest nuclear stockpile in the world at the time.

Did we when Russia invaded Crimea? Nope.

It would have been great if the Budapest agreement ended up being more than words on paper but in the end Obama and others calculated that the risk of escalation wasn't worth keeping to the agreement. And ultimately that backfired but that doesn't really add any weight to preposterous notion that Putin was planning on steamrolling Poland. Or that China which has two aircraft carriers (and one is limited use), little practical military experience, and unproven capability was on the verge of invading a heavily militarized Taiwan.

Heck, per the article, we even TOLD Putin what he was risking to go into Ukraine. He did it anyways, and it hasn't gone nuclear - not even the "tactical" nukes a LOT of people seem to think would be ok (a lot of insane people, IMHO).

What are you talking about here? Who is the "LOT" of people you are referring to here?

If Biden and the West hadn't contested (stopped? TBD) him in the rest of Ukraine, I see no reason he wouldn't have kept going, *especially* if China invaded Taiwan and we were pre-occupied there, or even half-assing it.

Except for the 70K US active duty soldiers, hundreds of thousands of active duty European soldiers, millions in reserves, overwhelming technological and equipment superiority, and a first strike capability a few keystrokes away nothing at all would be dissuading Putin even with the whole lot of nothing that would have been happening in China.

Sure, everyone would be trying to prevent it from going nuclear, and maybe they would be successful, but IMHO, a 2 front war in Europe and SE Asia is a World War, even if it's non-nuclear.

Sure. Nothing is impossible but your scenario is pretty much as close as it comes.

[malchior]

What a bag of dicks. Seriously can't see how bad it would be to not sign on? Whatever.

FWIW Sanders and Warren saying this leads me to believe the votes are there and they are just making noise because it is safe to.

[El Guapo]

What a bag of dicks. Seriously can't see how bad it would be to not sign on? Whatever.

FWIW Sanders and Warren saying this leads me to believe the votes are there and they are just making noise because it is safe to.

Seems to me that there are both good substantive reasons (because this is establishing the precedent of paying a ransom) and good political reasons (because it probably helps the bill pass more than them voting for it) for them to do this, so this doesn't seem terribly surprising.

[Apollo]

What a bag of dicks. Seriously can't see how bad it would be to not sign on? Whatever.

FWIW Sanders and Warren saying this leads me to believe the votes are there and they are just making noise because it is safe to.

Seems to me that there are both good substantive reasons (because this is establishing the precedent of paying a ransom) and good political reasons (because it probably helps the bill pass more than them voting for it) for them to do this, so this doesn't seem terribly surprising.

I don't understand what you mean by "establishing a precedent"? Isn't this now Business as Usual when the Dems have the Presidency and the GOP controls Congress? Anyway, I otherwise agree with what you posted. Never really expected Warren or Sanders to vote for this.

[waitingtoconnect]

What concerns me is this debacle clearly shows there is no one actually running the country. I’m sure they claim they are; but in my opinion this country has always been its strongest when there is bipartisan consensus on the way forward. Right now we can’t even agree on what reality we live in and representatives and former presidents are openly defying democracy and lauding foreign dictators like Putin.

[malchior]

What concerns me is this debacle clearly shows there is no one actually running the country. I’m sure they claim they are; but in my opinion this country has always been its strongest when there is bipartisan consensus on the way forward.

I agree but that stopped being possible (except for increasingly rare moments) between 12-15 years ago and it was fraying long before that.

Right now we can’t even agree on what reality we live in and representatives and former presidents are openly defying democracy and lauding foreign dictators like Putin.

Yup. It's grim. What this debacle shows us is that there are still outsize risks that the government will become so dysfunctional it causes an accidental or intentional crisis which risks further inflaming the instability. We might muddle through these times but it seems like eventually we will step on a rake out in the yard.

[El Guapo]

What a bag of dicks. Seriously can't see how bad it would be to not sign on? Whatever.

FWIW Sanders and Warren saying this leads me to believe the votes are there and they are just making noise because it is safe to.

Seems to me that there are both good substantive reasons (because this is establishing the precedent of paying a ransom) and good political reasons (because it probably helps the bill pass more than them voting for it) for them to do this, so this doesn't seem terribly surprising.

I don't understand what you mean by "establishing a precedent"? Isn't this now Business as Usual when the Dems have the Presidency and the GOP controls Congress? Anyway, I otherwise agree with what you posted. Never really expected Warren or Sanders to vote for this.

That's exactly what I mean - this deal supports the idea that it's normal / "business as usual" for the GOP to use the threat of a cataclysmic default to extort one-sided policy concessions from a Democratic president.

[Smoove_B]

Passed with more (D) than (R) votes. I'm sure that will help McCarthy.

[Kraken]

McC might actually emerge from this stronger. He defied the Freedom Caucus and they reportedly won't call for his ouster because they don't have the votes.

[Alefroth]

Lol

[malchior]

Ezra Klein's decomposition of the (now potential) outcomes of the debt ceiling point out all the maddening inconsistencies of what just happened. It's a decent enough analysis I personally used as a foil for thinking about the outlines of what this tells us about the state of politics beyond banal divided government conventional wisdom.

He points out the cuts achieved (~$180B) by the Republicans don't come anywhere close to the risks they took.

It’s about a $69 billion cut to spending next year and a $112 billion cut in 2025, with no significant budget caps or automatic cuts kicking in after two years. It leaves Biden’s major achievements, from the Inflation Reduction Act to student loan cancellation, intact.

Threatening default — and we came within days of it this time — in order to get a deal like this is like threatening to detonate a bomb beneath the bank unless the teller gives you $150 and a commemorative mug. It’s a bizarre mismatch of means and ends.

He then walks through some scenarios. In the end, he gets around to comparing the current event with the 2011 debt ceiling drama where they got over $1T in cuts. He also correctly IMO relates that the timing of those cuts in 2011 was awful considering we were still recovering from 2008 whereas we could probably absorb more cuts now.

He then correctly likens the difference to the lack of cohesive strategy on the Republicans and Democratic sides but more importantly he notes the "modest" outcome here itself points out that the debt ceiling mechanism is not a stable negotiating tool anymore. The Democrats are inclined to revolt over the hostage taking and the Republicans are inclined to revolt if they don't get their way. Guess we'll find out in 2-4 years if we have the same rough Congressional make up.

[YellowKing]

Threatening default — and we came within days of it this time — in order to get a deal like this is like threatening to detonate a bomb beneath the bank unless the teller gives you $150 and a commemorative mug. It’s a bizarre mismatch of means and ends.

McCarthy didn't go in looking for $150 and a commemorative mug. He went in looking for the contents of the bank, and then he got completely out-negotiated.

[malchior]

Threatening default — and we came within days of it this time — in order to get a deal like this is like threatening to detonate a bomb beneath the bank unless the teller gives you $150 and a commemorative mug. It’s a bizarre mismatch of means and ends.

McCarthy didn't go in looking for $150 and a commemorative mug. He went in looking for the contents of the bank, and then he got completely out-negotiated.

The accounts that have come out of the negotiations don't really support this idea. McCarthy's negotiators never even actually asked for the hardliner positions. They sought unspecified cuts. The lack of specificity apparently hampered them significantly. The crisis unfolded because elements of McCarthy's caucus demanded hostage taking that the leadership half-heartedly executed and that still presented significant risks that Biden's lack of general strategy leaned into.

Klein comparatively walks through how 2011 went differently not because of the negotiators but in how the GOP at the time had a cohesive framework to hang their demands around. This time they didn't. The bill the GOP had passed was crazy and unserious. It wasn't a real starting line for negotiations. Graves and McHenry didn't even use it as a framework. And even then the accounts say they almost didn't make a deal at all.

In other words, we got lucky. Two things drove this compromise. McCarthy was willing to take a risk on his speakership - which was a surprise to many (including myself). Biden also got lucky because he arrived to negotiations perilously late (May 16th!) and fortunately wasn't put to task. They essentially threw policy positions at each other that caused multiple blow outs that led to some of the public outbursts. In the end, Graves/McHenry/McCarthy were willing to take something modest. If the Republicans had their act together or if the discord in the GOP was more serious then this might have turned out very differently.

I didn't quote it but Klein also wonders what the speakership fight was about since that the debt ceiling and the budget process were the impetus behind the revolt and the rules changes that were supposed to weaken McCarthy's ability to compromise. It seems like the speakership fight was even more performative than we realized at the time.

[Isgrimnur]

Threatening default — and we came within days of it this time — in order to get a deal like this is like threatening to detonate a bomb beneath the bank unless the teller gives you $150 and a commemorative mug. It’s a bizarre mismatch of means and ends.

McCarthy didn't go in looking for $150 and a commemorative mug. He went in looking for the contents of the bank, and then he got completely out-negotiated.

Dark Brandon, I've come to bargain.

[Octavious]

The only person that really won is Manchin. God I hate that sack of....

[El Guapo]

Threatening default — and we came within days of it this time — in order to get a deal like this is like threatening to detonate a bomb beneath the bank unless the teller gives you $150 and a commemorative mug. It’s a bizarre mismatch of means and ends.

McCarthy didn't go in looking for $150 and a commemorative mug. He went in looking for the contents of the bank, and then he got completely out-negotiated.

The accounts that have come out of the negotiations don't really support this idea. McCarthy's negotiators never even actually asked for the hardliner positions. They sought unspecified cuts. The lack of specificity apparently hampered them significantly. The crisis unfolded because elements of McCarthy's caucus demanded hostage taking that the leadership half-heartedly executed and that still presented significant risks that Biden's lack of general strategy leaned into.

Klein comparatively walks through how 2011 went differently not because of the negotiators but in how the GOP at the time had a cohesive framework to hang their demands around. This time they didn't. The bill the GOP had passed was crazy and unserious. It wasn't a real starting line for negotiations. Graves and McHenry didn't even use it as a framework. And even then the accounts say they almost didn't make a deal at all.

In other words, we got lucky. Two things drove this compromise. McCarthy was willing to take a risk on his speakership - which was a surprise to many (including myself). Biden also got lucky because he arrived to negotiations perilously late (May 16th!) and fortunately wasn't put to task. They essentially threw policy positions at each other that caused multiple blow outs that led to some of the public outbursts. In the end, Graves/McHenry/McCarthy were willing to take something modest. If the Republicans had their act together or if the discord in the GOP was more serious then this might have turned out very differently.

I didn't quote it but Klein also wonders what the speakership fight was about since that the debt ceiling and the budget process were the impetus behind the revolt and the rules changes that were supposed to weaken McCarthy's ability to compromise. It seems like the speakership fight was even more performative than we realized at the time.

I've read some accounts that have argued that what McCarthy was really pushing for at the end of the day was just a deal that would establish debt ceiling hostage taking as a normal practice. Such that ultimately what was important was not getting a long list of concessions (though that certainly would have been nice from his perspective), but rather was one-sided concessions - that he needed to get Democrats to give something in exchange for nothing other than raising the debt ceiling.