comment: >
  
  do you really think the cuts have not been identified? Or transmitted or attempted to be transmitted to the dems for negotiation?  If the dems say NO to  negotiating..no changes.. no discussion...which last i read was the case...
  Well i see them as the obstacle. Not even willing to discuss it, so much for bipartisanship. 
  It is an unreasonable game of chicken on the dems part.
context: They are going to try and cut Medicaid and SNAP (Food Stamps). Why?
  
  
  Medicaid and SNAP are means-tested programs designed for the needy. They are, in traditional terms, welfare. Medicare and Social Security are not seen as welfare because recipients (with exceptions) pay into these programs all of their lives and then retire. 
  
  
  Recipients of Medicare/Social Security tend to be older and vote more often. Any political party would probably be fearful of their votes.
  
  
  So, the Republicans will so after these programs. They want to scale back the social welfare state and they see this as their chance. >
  
  They have been gunning for Social Security for years.  They're just really careful of how they market it. >
  
  For anyone who's been paying attention over the past couple decades, it's obvious that there has never been a plan. They just say stuff because it sounds good then figure out details later. >
  
  This is basically true.
  It's also true that in trying to figure out the details, we can guess at what they're going to try to cut.
  ​
  They aren't going to want to touch defense, or medicare or social security.
  ​
  Medicaide will probably end up on the chopping block. Also SNAP and other benefits for the poor like section 8 and TANF. I would also expect them to take aim at the department of education, which is probably going to mostly manifest as cuts for disability programs since those tend to be relatively more expensive. School lunch assistance is also a likely target.
  ​
  And of course, the big one is going to be cutting or eliminating the Affordable Care Act.
  ​
  I expect Biden and Senate Dems to oppose basically all of this. The mostly likely outcomes are that they make some kind of "compromise" on a toothless committee that studies the deficit or something. Other likely outcomes are that McCarthy ends up just knuckling under or getting outmaneuvered, or that he totally shits the bed and causes a major recession. >
  
  
  he totally shits the bed and causes a major recession.
  
  im willing to bet money this is what happens. the GOP has nothing to lose by doing this, their voters are so ignorant of what goes on, they'll blame democrats. 
  corporations and the wealthy want a recession because it means consolidation at low prices. >
  
  TBH I think Biden is gonna mint the coin, or just say "I'm unilaterally raising the debt ceiling because the constitution says we are required to pay the debt, come and sue me." before that happens. >
  
  
  or just say "I'm unilaterally raising the debt ceiling because the constitution says we are required to pay the debt
  
  The president can't do that, all the executive can do is propose a budget. All spending has to either originate or pass the house as a matter of the constitution: Article 1 Section 8.
  It's important to point out this only became an issue in 1982 under Reagan because prior to him the nation had the 1884 Antideficiency Act which automatically passed the previous year's budget if a new budget couldn't be agreed on. Yes, republicans created government shutdowns in order to fuck the country just for short-term gains in the polls. >
  
  …But… the spending has already been approved. That’s what the budget did: it approved the spending.
  We just didn’t raise the debt ceiling when we approved the budget. >
  
  And the law says the President has to spend the money. The President can't just not spend money because he feels like it or doesn't like where the money is going.
  Given the choice between "you must legally spend money", and "you legally mustn't spend more money" (and cause a huge financial disaster in the process), the choice is obvious. >
  
  The money has already been spent, not just approved. The debt limit has no bearing on this at all, just whether the US Treasury can fulfill the obligations for things it's already spent money on. The mere threat of not fulfilling these obligations has severe reverberations as the US Treasury will not be seen as a bedrock financial institution anymore and investors may not be as keen to buy things like US T-Bonds. >
  
  Congress controls the budgetary process. Republicans are forcing an artificial crisis to try and get concessions to they can't win via a vote. Rather than this gimmick the House should do its job and pass a budget. There is already a process in place to negotiate spending. McCarthy & crew should abide by that process. 
  As for what Republicans want.....who knows? Republicans haven't made it clear. Republicans are comparing about the top line number but haven't addressed any real changes they'd  like to make. Vague references to "foreign aid" and "woke-ism"  have been made but everyone who actually follows this stuff knows there isn't actually any money there. Least not money that changes anything. >
  
  Similar to "domestic terrorism" and "white supremacy". At least we can agree that vague weightless statements are the worst. >
  
  And all of them should be hanged for treason. You didn't just automatically assume 70 million registered Republica voters supported these 200 idiots, did you? You wouldn't make generalizations about people based on their group identities, would you? Because that's your entire progressive narrative. Every person is an individual separate from their group, and should be treated as such. Does that suddenly change for your political opposition? Hang them all in a public forum. 
  Back to the point: Jan 6th was a joke. It's incredible that people perceive 200 morons rioting in the Capital and smearing poop on walls as a serious threat. Just 21 years ago, Islamic extremists hijacked 4 planes, put them into buildings, and killed over 2,000 Americans. All in a couple hours.
  But youre trying to convince me that 200 people unsupported by any serious organization, is the "biggest threat America faces" 😐 I think the biggest threat America faces is willful ignorance, like we see with you right here. 
  I bet more people die in a weekend from black on black violence in inner cities, than murders by white supremacists ANNUALLY. Guaranteed. In fact, I'll be back with that data. >
  
  
  You didn't just automatically assume 70 million registered Republica voters supported these 200 idiots, did you?
  
  We don't have to assume anything; they tell us. In polls and at the ballot box. Millions of Republicans believe in the same lie about the 2020 election being stolen that motivated the GOP's Beer Hall Putsch.
  
  You wouldn't make generalizations about people based on their group identities, would you?
  
  Why wouldn't we? Or are you trying to conflate choosing to be a fascist with being born a certain way?
  Anyway, the attempted coup on January 6th wasn't dangerous because of the number of people it killed. It's dangerous because they were trying to keep Donald Trump in power by lynching Congress before Congress could certify Biden's lawful victory.
  You know this, of course. You're just doing what fascists do; pretend their attacks on democracy and the rule of law weren't that big a deal. >
  
  I see your not a psychologist, but anyways temperament and personality can and is in fact dependant on physiology, so youre actually quite wrong there. Just as some people maybe creative, or industrious, some people maybe orderly and structured, which may manifests itself as "anti-immigration", as this person may not like change to tradition. Just as an example.
  Lets continue. Election deniers lost basically all their races in the midterms. Minority opinion in the conservative world, and many MANY large conservative voices have been speaking against election denial for months / years. Lets not forget the impeachment of Trump because Democrats thought he stole the election with Russian help in 2016. So, we are all pieces of shit you guys do it too 🙄😒
  No one cares about trump, except the minority group of conservatives, and the liberal media. You genuinely think we want to make Trump into dictator 😐 for what? What did Trump do to deserve worship? 😂 Too much anti-trump narrative has gotten to your head. They're telling you this so you are scared and vote Democrat 😂 Jesus man, people are getting played out here like a fiddle. 
  Do us a favor and continue focusing on Trump. We will go ahead and focus on '24. Btw, that demo lineup looking a liiiiiittle weak 😳🫣✌️ >
  
  
  Lets continue. Election deniers lost basically all their races in the midterms.Minority opinion in the conservative world, and many MANY large conservative voices have been speaking against election denial for months / years.
  
  They lost basically all their general elections, but they won plenty of primaries. "Many large conservative voices" have not spoken out against election denial.
  
  Lets not forget the impeachment of Trump because Democrats thought he stole the election with Russian help in 2016. So, we are all pieces of shit you guys do it too 🙄😒
  
  That's not why Trump was impeached. Trump was impeached once for trying to withhold vital military aid from the President of Ukraine in order to coerce him into helping Trump smear Biden. Later he was impeached a second time for inciting an attack on the capitol.
  Also, the claim was not that Trump "stole" the election; the election was legitimate insofar as the votes cast were legitimate. The claim is that the election was influenced by Russia in favor of Trump (provably true), and that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian agents in that process (very likely also true, but lacking concrete proof).
  So you lied twice there.
  
  No one cares about trump, except the minority group of conservatives, and the liberal media. You genuinely think we want to make Trump into dictator 😐 for what? What did Trump do to deserve worship? 😂 Too much anti-trump narrative has gotten to your head. They're telling you this so you are scared and vote Democrat 😂 Jesus man, people are getting played out here like a fiddle.
  
  This is a pretty inept attempt at gaslighting, I have to say. >
  
  Yes they have 😂 Are you claiming to consume more conservative media than I do? Can you start listing names of voices who approve Jan 6? I can sure list those who condemn. 
  Yes, you're right; my memory fails me.
  Did I attempt tho? 🤔
  Great convo. Did we get anywhere? Not sure. >
  
  
  Yes they have 😂 Are you claiming to consume more conservative media than I do? Can you start listing names of voices who approve Jan 6?
  
  So now you've moved the goalposts from "many major conservative voices are speaking out against election denial" to "name conservative voices who approve of Jan 6th".
  You're way too obvious, man. >
  
  If they don't condemn, they approve. You claim they don't condemn. Who? Name them. Since you know "their" stance >
  
  I don’t believe a single republican actually cares about the debt. It becomes a talking point only when there is a democratic president. The ‘budget hawks’ suddenly lose their voice the moment a republican potus is sworn in. This is performative politics, nothing more. 
  McCarthy and company have no intentions of doing anything good for the nation over the next two years. The general thinking is that if they can increase individual misery among the general population, they will then be able to blame it 100% on Biden and dems. 
  Unfortunately those tactics were far more effective before the days of the internet. If Kevin believes suburban housewives will blame Biden for a default on US debt, they are woefully misguided. Yes the republican base will literally believe anything Tucker Carlson says. But the base alone can’t win swing states. 
  Republicans will try to blame Biden but they are the ones who will be blamed. After all, Biden and dems raised the debt ceiling several time already during his presidency. Plus Biden is still potus and he has the bully pulpit. Republicans don’t even have a plan so the whole thing is purely political. >
  
  
  I don’t believe a single republican actually cares about the debt
  
  As a party republicans haven't even attempted to balance the budget since Eisenhower, and that goes for state-level as well. Take Texas, which says 'we've got no income tax' as if that's good when it benefits the super-rich and not the working class, but has among the nation's highest property taxes and still spends badly, to the degree even apologist institutions like cato institute rank them near the bottom of the nation in 'individual liberty'. >
  
  
  What can the Republicans cut that would also be accepted by Democrats?
  
  Nothing, the debt celling is mostly for theatrics. Neither side can afford to let it crash, and the other knows it. >
  
  True.  Massive increase in borrowing cost... >
  
  They don't want to cut spending. If they did, then they would have when they had a trifecta under Trump. Instead they cut taxes and blew an even bigger hole in the budget. These are just talking points they use to rile up their base who don't pay attention to anything Republicans actually do. >
  
  Republicans aren't trying to negotiate, they're holding our economy hostage because they only support extremism. Like Marge bitching on the news about Biden using the only power he had to lower gas prices after blaming him for them for the last year. >
  
  Well. They are oxymoron party and some would argue word oxy. >
  
  In this instance, Oxymoron is short for Oxycodone Morons. >
  
  They are looking toward people having a selective memory.  Some of us remember the deficit predicted to follow the huge tax cut for rich people and the businesses that are now feeding inflation with record profits >
  
  The GOP wants to cut all social programs that help poor people. That won't do fuck all to paying down the debt, but they don't care about that, as long as they & their owners are getting paid. >
  
  THIS.
  It's about hurting the poor. It's about creating a modern day serfdom. This has been the goal since Edmund Burke. >
  
  Does it hurt a group they don't care for, like the poor or a minority?  Then they will cut it.  Environmental protection?  Cut.  Consumer protection?  Cut.  Enforcement of business regulations?  Cut.  
  We have plenty of past actions of the Republicans to go on for this, there's no guessing.  They would never cut military spending.  
  I honestly can't think of Republican cuts in the last 20 years that didn't hurt the American people and make life harder for those in need. >
  
  If they were smart (they aren't) they would tackle waste and corruption in Military spending. This is something we should all agree on. >
  
  “Congressman Rusty MacBeth doesn’t support the troops.” Proceed to get primaried.
  What they all agree on is their reelection. They’ll use any opportunity to make it happen, they’ll even eat their own if they sniff out a weakness. >
  
  Not to be facetious, but it’s pretty obvious. The Republicans are always looking to cut safety net programs if possible. I mean, a core part of their platform is bitching about “handouts.” The only practical place to cut spending is the military but neither party seems interested in doing so; especially not Republicans. >
  
  There’s some performative whining from the Right about military spending on aid to Ukraine but I suspect that’s one of those “we only talk about stopping it if there’s no realistic chance of that happening” gambits. >
  
  The Democrats should listen to the republicans then immediately counter to repeal all tax cuts given to those with over 5 million in income from any source given by republican administrations and congress over the past 40 years. Problem solved. Basically every tax cut promoted by the man greatly responsible for this republican financial fiasco. His name is Grover Norquist.
  The right’s go to talking point is, “ The revenue will not make a difference”. Not true. Especially in the out years it will make a big difference. >
  
  Good old Grover Norquist. Wants to make government so small he can drown it in the bathtub. It would be a country of haves & have nots. Chaos & mayhem would reign. >
  
  Pretty much what we have. >
  
  Republicans will destroy our economy and then the global economy because they don't want to pay for the bill they already spent. 3 trillion from Trump's tax cuts alone. The time to negotiate the debt ceiling is before you spend the money. >
  
  
  Republicans will destroy our economy and then the global economy because they don't want to pay for the bill they already spent
  
  They already used their control over the budget to create the embassy attack fiasco which they then blamed Clinton for when she as Secretary of State warned them 9/11-inspired attacks were incoming. >
  
  Gonna second that the answer to this question lies in understanding the Two Santas strategy >
  
  I think that by now we should all be able to see through this bullshit. They're gong to raise the debt ceiling. They do this every time. Dems want to raise taxes on Corporations, but not really. Republicans want to cut spending, but not really. So they'll fight about who's right and wrong and in the end they'll raise the debt ceiling because it's easier to kick the can than it is to actually clean up the mess they made.
  Every. Damn. Time. >
  
  It’s “we need tax cuts” when they are in power and “we need spending cuts” when they aren’t. Been that way as long as I can remember. They have no interest in governing, just performative grandstanding. Still don’t understand why more people in this country haven’t figured that out. >
  
  They don’t care about the debt ceiling. If they did they would have cut spending when they had unified control of the government under Trump. They only play this card when democrats are in power. So the idea that they would be happy with specific cuts is a pipedream. The point is to hurt democrats. >
  
  Realistically? They're going to go after Social Security. They just are. They don't care if they can't actually accomplish it: they're more a party of memes than means now. They don't care if they can't actually accomplish the goal, because they're more about the messaging than anything else. >
  
  The Republicans want to enact changes they desire without going about it the standard way: getting enough people to vote for them so they can enact the policy changes. They'd rather threaten to tank the economy if they don't get the changes they want. This is by definition terrorism. >
  
  They got enough people to vote for them to control the House of Representatives. The legislative body constitutionally responsible for all new spending bills. >
  
  Kind of a non sequitur. >
  
  As soon as you find out, let me know.  Since even the Republicans don't seem to know.
  The only things you could cut that would make much of an impact are Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Social Security, and Defense.  Everything else is nickel and dimes. >
  
  And all the government is doing is shifting the cost... >
  
  They can cut nothing. There is no reason to negotiate here. The GOP has the votes to do what they need. No need for Dem involvement. Either the GOP tank the economy and they wear that scarlet letter, or they agree to make payments and to honor the debt. 
  What is there to negotiate here? The Dems say 'pay the damned bill'. The Reps say, 'Yeah we wanna pay the bill to and we know just like you that the bill need to be paid. But we want to get some concessions from you to do what we already both know we have to do.'   
  It's a stupid idea and the Dems DO NOT need to engage in this faux crisis. >
  
  They did the same to Trump >
  
  They don't have a plan. There are only 3 ways to do this through cuts, 
  medicare/medicaid cuts which they have said they wouldn't do, 
  military cuts which is unlikely considering the political bend of that party, 
  and cuts to disaster relief like fema. 
  You could try hodgepodge cuts across other programs, but to hit the number they want to hit, something has to come from these programs (or taxes have to be increased, particularly on the top 10%). >
  
  The OP is perpetuating a republican red herring. Voting to raise the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the budget process. "Raising the debt ceiling" is government speak for paying your credit card bill when it's due. 
  It's not unlike your household budget. Through the month you and whoever you live with choose to buy stuff and put it on a joint CC. If you happen to live with several people some of them may not want to spend money on something but everyone agrees to follow democratic principles and let the majority decide. However, now that the bill is due you can't have those people saying they don't want to pay their fair share. Even if they 'voted' against some of the spending they've enjoyed it's benefits. The republicans vote against stuff all the time then go tell their constituents how they're bringing jobs etc to their district. >
  
  Well. Imagine you sit at 30 trillion deficit and you lack any universal healthcare like every other first world nation.  Just doesn’t make any sense? >
  
  It makes perfect sense.  There is less income than there is spending. Europeans with universal health care and pay for it with higher taxes.
  You can either increase income, or you could decrease spending. It's not rocket science.   The US could have a balanced budget with its current spending by taking in more revenue. >
  
  Higher taxes of course.... Offset by higher expectations >
  
  Republicans have no real plan. They're saying things that jive with their supporters. The difficult part is giving a detailed plan of how it could actually be done. Their supporters are not big on the details of how they will accomplish this so the overall message is the most important. In other words, they're not held accountable for having no plan, and sticking it to be libs is seen as accomplishing something. 
  What Republicans will likely do is attack agencies that will score them political points. Targeting the IRS is probably #1, but it doesn't make any real impact on overall spending that they're claiming. They'll target other agencies like department of education or CDC or whatever is polling well. >
  
  IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FOLKS LIVING OFF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND NOT DOING ANY WORK, LOOK NO FURTHER THAN HOUSE AND SENATE REPUBLICANS. >
  
  Here's the thing, the vast majority of congress are multi-millionaires and don't need the $150K a year they get to live a very comfortable life.  Even socialist Bernie Sanders has a million dollar townhouse in DC another million dollar lake house and a very nice home in Burlington (it's yellow) plus whatever money he makes on the side.  So cutting their salaries to nothing really means nothing they will just sell themselves a little more to the people with even deeper pockets and live will go on as usual. >
  
  Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security. Meanwhile the treasury was looted by Republicans with the PPP forgiven loans >
  
  Not so much cuts, but more like eliminations. Koch brothers and the like who support the GOP want to remove entitlements, like social security, from the government and make them private. That way, private industry can charge fees for managing what once was public money. Basically, the rich get richer from everyone else’s money. >
  
  Statutorily social security does not contribute to the deficit. Not that I think your assessment is wrong but if they use that excuse they are full of shit. >
  
  Nothing, because they won’t get any. The Republicans have no power here, they’re just doing their usual grandstanding. In 2011, Obama and Biden learned the lesson that negotiating over the debt ceiling is a fruitless endeavor. >
  
  I think there is a responsible discussion to be had, regardless of political party, about Government spending and priorities in our country. Honestly both parties are crap at spending responsibly and actually prioritizing what we care about.
  We can't run ever higher debt forever. >
  
  Two different things...  
  Debt (what I was talking about): "A country's gross government debt is the financial liabilities of the government sector" - wikipedia
  Deficit (what the article you cited is talking about): refers to a situation where expenses exceed revenues or liabilities exceed assets in a single year. 
  The US national debt is $31.46 T
  If you want to talk ratios, Government Debt to GDP in the United States averaged 65.20 percent of GDP from 1940 until 2022, reaching an all time high of 129.00 percent of GDP in 2022 and a record low of 31.80 percent of GDP in 1981. In a study conducted by the World Bank, a ratio that exceeds 77% for an extended period of time may result in an adverse impact on economic growth.
  So right now, IF the US was able to put 100% of GDP to paying down the National Debt (actually impossible) it would take 1.3 years to do it.
  Top 12 Countries with the Highest Debt-to-GDP Ratios (%)
  Venezuela — 350%
  Japan — 266%
  Sudan — 259%
  Greece — 206%
  Lebanon — 172%
  Cabo Verde — 157%
  Italy — 156%
  Libya — 155%
  Portugal — 134%
  Singapore — 131%
  Bahrain — 128%
  United States — 128%
  Respectfully, we have a debt problem and the only way out of it is to look at ways to spend money wiser, and more inline with our real priorities. >
  
  So the current ratio is.75.....   that is okay as the government has regular cash flow.... >
  
  What do you mean the current ratio is .75? 
  Based on the information I posted above the US National Debt is currently 1.28:1 Debt to GDP. That means the entire GDP of the country is no longer able to pay the debt. 
  Add to that the US spends approx 500M in interest, and by 2025 is expected to spend more on interest on the debt than we do on defense. >
  
  Nominal dollars?  Worse than useless....
  Current ratio= current assets/current liabilities....  
  I'm not sure what percentage of the total debt is short versus long term (5 years).  Or maybe one year.... 
  Deficit is dropping in any event. >
  
  Ok, fine walk me through how you came to .75 because it isn't on the link you sent earlier.
  Deficit isn't dropping if you compare since 2020, nor if you compare to 2012. At the end of the day however that still doesn't discuss the fact that our debt totals more than GDP, how do you account for that? >
  
  I know, I mixed up the ratio.
  Honest to God I can't find out what percentage of us debt is short term.  Try a little harder I guess.  Or ask... >
  
  Thee GOP are only interested in being Partizan hacks. 
  They don't care about the debt or anything they harp on about, they just want to fuck with Democrats. 
  So nothing is genuine. >
  
  Realistically? They are looking to break the back of the federal government. They don't want spending cuts. They want the fiscal default. It doesn't hurt the gerontocracy or the oligarchy. Just the rest of us. And it solidifies their control.
  Realistically. >
  
  Nothing should be accepted by Democrats.  You don't agree to spend money and then decide you want to argue over paying the bill when it arrives. >
  
  They want the cuts, so the burden is on them to identify it.  After they identify it, Democrats can respond. Notwithstanding the majority in House, the Republicans are in a weak position to negotiate anything with respect to cuts. >
  
  There is an election coming up & their actions will be remembered. >
  
  How about they start with the Presidents Discretionary Budget which exceeds $100 billion. >
  
  Elaborate? Never heard of this >
  
  Above commenter is pushing false information. FY2022's presidential discretionary budget is an allocation to allow the executive branch to fund a variety of functions the executive is required to do by law or constitution but doesn't have pre-allocated funding to set priority, and it was 58.4 billion not anywhere close to $100 billion. >
  
  For starters, the conservative controlled supreme court is going to overturn the student loan forgiveness program.
  This is a massive spending plan and an executive order that didn't go through the appropriate checks and balances so it is very likely to get overturned by the same court that overturned Roe. >
  
  There’s no downside to raising the debt ceiling, so eventually they’ll do it. >
  
  
  There’s no downside to raising the debt ceiling
  
  Except not having a weapon to attack the other side for. The debt ceiling and government shutdowns weren't a problem since 1884 until Reagan in 1982 because the Antideficiency Act automatically passed the last year's budget if the house couldn't agree on a new budget. Republicans gutted that so they could leave the previous year's debt ceiling and threaten the opposition to get concessions they couldn't purely with popular elections. >
  
  A starting point that the rouge GOP members that held up the speaker vote want and the Democrats, while hesitant, would be willing to go along with, would be cuts in defense spending like the military has been asking for to help reduce waste. >
  
  Just asked the Democrats. It will be the same old dog and pony show. Social security. Medicaid, Medicare. >
  
  Education. The more dumb our general population is, the more they get elected. >
  
  If you read the Inflation Reduction Act, you can see clearly that Democrats packed that bill with more funding than it really needs.
  And I think that 10% is what they will agree to cut, and that won't damage our progress on the Democrats agenda.
  But Democrats aren't going to give in with that concession over the debt limit. The people who will feel the pain first, if the US defaults, have a LOT of influence on Republicans.
  McCarthy, or his successor, will pass a clean debt ceiling bill. All of the Democrats will vote for that. If just FIVE Republicans vote for it, then it passes.
  The Democrats will force the bill out of Committee with a discharge vote, and force it to the floor, and it will pass. It's McCarthy's choice if he wants to do business like that and get humiliated again and again.
  He COULD do something different and get legislation on immigration, crime, housing, police reform, and gun control.
  He COULD negotiate and get closer to a balanced budget.
  If he is a blind idiot, he will get nothing and he will be kicked out of office. See if he survives if the debt is defaulted. He won't. >
  
  They will cut things like the Arts, Education, Snap, FBI, CIA, DOJ, National Parks & funds for voting. >
  
  Before we talk about potential cuts, we gotta see how this could play out:
  Republicans need SOMETHING to show their voters. If 100% of Dems and like 5 Republicans end up raising it on their own, there could (will be) be a snap vote on a new (more hardcore) speaker of the house right after, because the hard right is gonna be PISSED about getting nothing ("What are we gonna tell our constituents on FoxNews?"). 
  They can't blame the Democrats for this because the Dems are in the minority and they expected they wouldn't help, so the right wing will look inwards for an enemy to blame. The party heads fear this because it will cause total chaos and basically render their majority useless with infighting. They most likely won't have a majority for one person they can agree on, so moderate Republicans could reach across the aisle and ask Dems for help to nominate a moderate Republican just to stop the madness. Again, the hard right is gonna be PISSED at this and try to gum that deal up with everything they can ("Any Republicans that vote with the Dems for this will never serve on a committee and will get $0 for their reelection."). 
  Dems would also ask, "Why should we help you? This is hurting you politically and makes you look like idiots to the American people." So, moderate Republicans may have to give the Dems something in the return for their votes. But GOP party heads would never want to go along with this as this would usurp the entire Republican caucus and Dems probably wouldn't see much value in bailing them out anyways.
  So what to do?
  The only way to do this is to pass something that allows Republicans to tell their voters that we go something positive from raising the debt limit. But it's gotta be something that Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson can tell their viewers "was not 100% what they wanted, but it's something." Then they can go back to what they'd rather do: assailing Dems 24/7. 
  Dems absolutely do not want to negotiate on this because it would set a dangerous precedent that policy goals can be achieved via threats to the global economy instead of through the normal debate process when the budget is written. If they give in, it will signal to Republicans that THIS is the tactic to do next time as well. If the Dems put their foot down (hard) and really dig in, they believe that Republicans will start getting an earful from their donors/ financiers about getting this debt limit raised DONE asap once the clock starts getting closer to default and markets start freaking out.
  If it gets crazy towards the end, I could see Dems MAYBE agreeing to form a committee with Republicans with a goal of vague future cuts. But Dems would only agree to it if they had veto control over the cuts at the end. 
  Dems may also agree to give certain powers to federal agencies to make unspecified cuts of their own. Example: "Hey Dept. of Transportation. Cut your budget by 3% any way that you can while still following all your legal obligations." But then this would start lawsuits because the agencies would say they can't do their job without the funds, and the Supreme court would probably side with them because "Congress has the power of the purse" and congress didn't mandate these cuts (their weird ad hoc committee did) So no cuts would actually happen in the end, but Republicans could still tell their voters that they did right as the deal was struck.
  My prediction: It gets raised RIGHT when the markets start to get jittery, with Dems agreeing on the creation of a "Deficit reduction committee" that in the end doesn't do anything but allows Republicans to tell their voters that they did something. >
  
  Medicade
  Military exports to ukraine
  Any social programs for the poor
  Green energy subsidies
  the IRS
  the FBI
  any university funding >
  
  What they should do is cut the fat from the defense budget. You could cut 100s of billions and not affect readiness in any way. You could improve services for veterans, focus on actual used technology and make a much less bloated fighting force.
  This will not happen. Billions and billions are appropriated to individual Congress persons districts where certain technology is developed, needed or not, to gain or keep votes. You cut those billions, you create thousands of unemployed federal workers. The defense budget consists of welfare in many ways by a different name. >
  
  Republicans can’t do shit. They don’t have enough numbers. Whatever the house votes on, the Senate has to pass it. If Biden doesn’t like it, he will veto it. In order to override a veto you need 60 votes. Anything the house does is literally to please, their ignorant orc donors. Not to pass laws.  Ignore the house, ignore their requests ignore their subpoenas >
  
  If the House and Senate pass a budget it is already a bipartisan agreement. If Biden tanks it at that point he alone shoulders all the blame for crashing the economy >
  
  Realistically, they won’t. Republicans cutting spending is lip service, when given full power they spend as much as democrats, just on different things. >
  
  Realistically, any cuts they present from Congress will still need the Senate and President to sign off. So I expect messaging bills more than anything that looks passable. >
  
  There is nothing realistic about anything Republicans want to do.  Its all lies to cover their own greed. >
  
  They are unlikely to target a set of specific programs, but demand a reduction of "waste" by demanding a fixed percentage reduction of the top line budget numbers for non-defense spending
  The actual cuts would then be the responsibility of "unelected bureaucracy" >
  
  Democrats only control the Executive branch
  The Legislative branch is split
  and the Republicans control the Judicial branch. >
  
  There is pork in the budget. 
  But in all actuality, percentage wise there isn’t enough of it (if it was all cut) to make a difference. 
  The biggest items in the budget are interest on the debt and entitlements, none of which can be cut. >
  
  They will look to spend more and tax less, raising the deficit.  Just like they have every other time they've had a legislative body since Reagan.