Debt limit antics this go 'round: same posturing for the base? Or for realz calamity?

[LouderVol]

A government shut down is not the same thing as a debt default. This explains the difference.

What’s the difference between a government shutdown and a failure to raise the debt ceiling?

The risk here is not of failure to approve spending bills -- this is far worse -- this is defaulting on interest payment on US Treasuries, considered to be the safest investment vehicle there is. If we miss interest payments on those, well, no one knows for sure but imagine if the safest investment you personally had turned out to be not so much.

I understand the difference, my point was, what changes if we increase the debt ceiling, and just keep spending? we have been kicking the can down the road since before I was born. If the default isn't reason to address the issue, what is?

the point of the govt closure was that these things usually aren't as doom and gloom as they are made out to be. That is done to push a narrative "Oh the (insert party here) are being dumb and going to doooooom our country". until/unless someone calls up the debt we are about to default on things keep ticking whether or not the ceiling is raised. Our credit takes a hit, the feds have to adjust rates, and we are all still sitting in the same bed we have been crapping in.

if we increase the debt ceiling whats the point of paying taxes? this was THE ceiling, and as I always knew, no one actually cares. Even the Rs are going along with the ceiling raising, they just have terms for it. this is just another political issue because one party is in charge, and not the other. otherwise the same exact shoe would be on the other foot.

 

[volfanhill]

"There are other more esoteric options to avoid the default. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the Biden administration is considering a legal challenge stating that the concept of the debt limit is unconstitutional, thereby ignoring it. The theory is based on a clause in the 14th Amendment that reads “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Gerard Magliocca, a constitutional law professor at Indiana University, concurred with the assessment, writing that the president “must take any lawful measures to prevent such a default” and that “probably nobody has standing to challenge that action in court.”

Thoughts?

 

[SuzyVol]

I believe, but am not going to the trouble to research it, that the U. S. Treasury receives sufficient tax revenue each month to pay the interest on the debt? If so, and without raising the debt ceiling, why can't we make servicing the debt the first spending priority and then spend the remainder on whatever ongoing federal activities we can afford? In other words, why is defaulting on the national debt considered to be a given? On the other hand, if I am mistaken and the Treasury actually does not receive sufficient tax revenue each month to even pay the interest on our debt, we are in heap big trouble and a few more debt ceiling increases merely dig a deeper hole.

 

[LouderVol]

I believe, but am not going to the trouble to research it, that the U. S. Treasury receives sufficient tax revenue each month to pay the interest on the debt? If so, and without raising the debt ceiling, why can't we make servicing the debt the first spending priority and then spend the remainder on whatever ongoing federal activities we can afford? In other words, why is defaulting on the national debt considered to be a given? On the other hand, if I am mistaken and the Treasury actually does not receive sufficient tax revenue each month to even pay the interest on our debt, we are in heap big trouble and a few more debt ceiling increases merely dig a deeper hole.

Fiscal responsibility is not allowed.

 

[LouderVol]

"There are other more esoteric options to avoid the default. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the Biden administration is considering a legal challenge stating that the concept of the debt limit is unconstitutional, thereby ignoring it. The theory is based on a clause in the 14th Amendment that reads “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Gerard Magliocca, a constitutional law professor at Indiana University, concurred with the assessment, writing that the president “must take any lawful measures to prevent such a default” and that “probably nobody has standing to challenge that action in court.”

Thoughts?

The only thing I have seen is that its unConsitutional to interfere with the payment of the debts. Seems like this should require payments of debt, or at least the interest there of, before defaulting

 

[McDad]

"There are other more esoteric options to avoid the default. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the Biden administration is considering a legal challenge stating that the concept of the debt limit is unconstitutional, thereby ignoring it. The theory is based on a clause in the 14th Amendment that reads “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Gerard Magliocca, a constitutional law professor at Indiana University, concurred with the assessment, writing that the president “must take any lawful measures to prevent such a default” and that “probably nobody has standing to challenge that action in court.”

Thoughts?

I'm gonna have to contemplate.

 

[McDad]

"There are other more esoteric options to avoid the default. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the Biden administration is considering a legal challenge stating that the concept of the debt limit is unconstitutional, thereby ignoring it. The theory is based on a clause in the 14th Amendment that reads “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Gerard Magliocca, a constitutional law professor at Indiana University, concurred with the assessment, writing that the president “must take any lawful measures to prevent such a default” and that “probably nobody has standing to challenge that action in court.”

Thoughts?

This seems relevant (wiki) :
Prior to 1917, the United States did not have a debt ceiling, with Congress either authorizing specific loans or allowing the Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave the Treasury discretion over what type of debt instrument would be issued.[2]

Between 1788 and 1917, Congress would authorize each bond issue by the United States Treasury by passing a legislative act that approved the issue and the amount.

In 1917, during World War I, Congress created the debt ceiling with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, which allowed the Treasury to issue bonds and take on other debt without specific Congressional approval, as long as the total debt fell under the statutory debt ceiling. The 1917 legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills).

If the debt limit is unconstitutional, it took 106 years for someone to figure it out. I seriously doubt anyone on Biden's advisory team is the brilliant constitutional scholar of the last 100+ years.

Also, if the debt limit is unconstitutional, is the ability to issue bonds (from the same act) unconstitutional...and are treasury bonds issues since 1917 unconstitutional?

 

[hUTch2002]

"There are other more esoteric options to avoid the default. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the Biden administration is considering a legal challenge stating that the concept of the debt limit is unconstitutional, thereby ignoring it. The theory is based on a clause in the 14th Amendment that reads “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Gerard Magliocca, a constitutional law professor at Indiana University, concurred with the assessment, writing that the president “must take any lawful measures to prevent such a default” and that “probably nobody has standing to challenge that action in court.”

Thoughts?

The ultimate debt forgiveness. Of course that’s the answer the Biden admin comes up with. Forget accountability, just pretend it doesn’t exist!

 

[lawgator1]

The ultimate debt forgiveness. Of course that’s the answer the Biden admin comes up with. Forget accountability, just pretend it doesn’t exist!

And the Republican alternative is not to honor the debt. So much for accountability.

 

[MontyPython]

The world is filled with hypocrites.

Criticize our fed government for spending 6% of our budget on debt interest payments while carrying personal debt ratios often over 50%.

There is ZERO crisis here. Politics.

 

[SlipKidVol]

Is this the same as only 24 days till we run out if diesel?

 

[hUTch2002]

And the Republican alternative is not to honor the debt. So much for accountability.

I never said they were big on accountability either. We didn’t get into this mess due to one party or another. They all had to play for it to get this bad.

 

[lawgator1]

I never said they were big on accountability either. We didn’t get into this mess due to one party or another. They all had to play for it to get this bad.

I think everyone agrees that spending needs to be cut. The where is the issue.

But that doesn't mean we can afford not to pay the current tab on debt. That needs to be handled regardless of future spending or cuts.

It's all theater. GOP ers right now pretending to be all righteous about spending, when they are not. And mixing it with the debt payments. Just find some goofy spending and claim its emblematic of all spending. When it's not.

 

[Orangeburst]

I think everyone agrees that spending needs to be cut. The where is the issue.

But that doesn't mean we can afford not to pay the current tab on debt. That needs to be handled regardless of future spending or cuts.

It's all theater. GOP ers right now pretending to be all righteous about spending, when they are not. And mixing it with the debt payments. Just find some goofy spending and claim its emblematic of all spending. When it's not.

How do you suppose we reduce spending without first attacking "goofy spending"?

 

[lawgator1]

How do you suppose we reduce spending without first attacking "goofy spending"?

The goofy spending often pointed to it a teeny tiny fraction of a sliver of a miniscule piece of the pie.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Commercial on TV calling this the MAGA default.

 

[C-south]

I think everyone agrees that spending needs to be cut. The where is the issue.

But that doesn't mean we can afford not to pay the current tab on debt. That needs to be handled regardless of future spending or cuts.

It's all theater. GOP ers right now pretending to be all righteous about spending, when they are not. And mixing it with the debt payments. Just find some goofy spending and claim its emblematic of all spending. When it's not.

It needs to be cut across the board.

 

[LouderVol]

I think everyone agrees that spending needs to be cut. The where is the issue.

But that doesn't mean we can afford not to pay the current tab on debt. That needs to be handled regardless of future spending or cuts.

It's all theater. GOP ers right now pretending to be all righteous about spending, when they are not. And mixing it with the debt payments. Just find some goofy spending and claim its emblematic of all spending. When it's not.

Cut some off everything. No favorites, no arguing. Just 25/33% off the top of everything.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Commercial on TV calling this the MAGA default.

Of course it is. This whole thing sneaked up on the Republicans

 

[C-south]

I say add another trillion for dei initiatives.

 

[VolStrom]

The drama continues. I'd like to see a debt limit freeze for a few months, just to see what we can do without.

White House 'dug in' on demands in debt limit talks, McCarthy told House GOP: Source

 

[LouderVol]

seems like people may be about to find out its not a good idea to depend on the government for everything.

 

[hog88]

The drama continues. I'd like to see a debt limit freeze for a few months, just to see what we can do without.

White House 'dug in' on demands in debt limit talks, McCarthy told House GOP: Source

Rs being played like a fiddle as usual.

 

[VolStrom]

Rs being played like a fiddle as usual.

I'm not so sure. I think both sides will catch hell, especially if grandma doesn't get her SS check so they can send arms to Ukraine.

 

[lawgator1]

Cut some off everything. No favorites, no arguing. Just 25/33% off the top of everything.

Easy to say but does this include SS and Medicare? And what abotu defense? Last I heard the GOP offer included defense increases or at leats no decreases, despite cuts elsewhere.