# Situations where fighting a raise to the debt ceiling is appropriate **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 11, 2016, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625 "2016-07-11T02:29:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/21 "2016-07-14T19:42:00Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Yellowstone Park might not fetch as much as even a single aircraft carrier, unless the Park were sold to a foreign power. And what would the Chinese pay for an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” like Guam or Midway? > > But my suggestion is not a serious proposal for reducing debt, but just the opposite: If the President were to announce that he had to auction off an aircraft carrier because Congress wouldn’t raise the debt ceiling, might that cause the Cruzites to feel shame? OK I must have skimmed over the military assets when I read your post. Since that is the only part of government the Pubs seem to like these days, that might work. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/22 "2016-07-16T04:37:20Z")
Wouldn’t it be more accurate if this thread were entitled: “Situations where proposing the United States default on its debt payment is appropriate?” ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/23 "2016-07-16T05:05:08Z")
Well, equivalent, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/24 "2016-07-16T07:24:15Z")
I wonder what the OP thinks of the information he’s been given in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/25 "2016-07-16T10:18:53Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > I interpreted Jonathon Chance’s comment differently. > > The need for a raise in the debt ceiling is due to the net effect of all of the Congressional actions regarding raising revenue and appropriations. When the Congress appropriates more money and doesn’t pass a law to raise more revenue, you could argue that they implicitly raised the debt ceiling. No more than you can imply that they approved taxes be raised. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/26 "2016-07-16T10:32:36Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 1. A straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back situation where the national debt has reached such a massive high that a line simply must be drawn; Just pointing out that, according to people like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton - we’ve already reached that situation a dozen times. Well, half a dozen or so. It’s only ever a problem when there’s a Democrat in the Whitehouse. But every time the subject comes up, to hear Republicans tell it, it’s The End of The World!!! and it’s totally worth shutting down the government and holding other matters hostage and wrecking the US credit standing over. Then they stop showboating, pass the raise and everyone goes on with their lives just fine. Until next time, when, OH NO! IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD AGAIN! It’s time to stop believing that the Republicans are seriously concerned about debt or spending - or anything other than blighting Obama’s presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/27 "2016-07-16T17:48:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No more than you can imply that they approved taxes be raised. Just saw this autocorrect error- to clarify, a mismatch between revenue (which is both taxes and debt) and spending no more implies that debt can be raised than it does that taxes can be raised or spending cut. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/28 "2016-07-16T18:50:10Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > A scenario where a President wants a lot of deficit spending for a bad cause - for instance, to borrow $1 trillion for an unpopular war in the Middle East. Congress has the power–[the _sole_ power](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_7.html)\*–to determine spending in the United States. The POTUS cannot spend one dime on his or her own authority without a Congressional appropriation. Congress also [sole](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_7_1.html) [authority](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_1.html) for setting federal taxes. \*The President can [veto](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_7_2-3.html) spending. But he or she can’t somehow veto a _lack_ of spending–“I hereby veto the failure of Congress to appropriate money to buy me a new pony.” If a President “wants a lot of deficit spending for a bad cause”, Congress should just refuse to fund the “unpopular war in the Middle East” in the first damned place. As everyone else has already said, not raising the debt ceiling means Congress _already voted_ to spend $1 trillion for a war in the Middle East (or [to build a Death Star](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/), or for Congressional hookers and blow), but now–having not set taxes high enough to cover the previous lame-brained idea they _already voted for_–have decided to default on the debt they incurred spending all that money on Middle East wars, planet-destroying superweapons, or Congressional hookers and blow. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/29 "2016-07-16T20:35:37Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > It is irresponsible to not pay for things you have already bought. Like a mortgage? We should all buy our homes with cash? No loans? Fighting over the debt ceiling is a GOP tool to make them look fiscally responsible, whereas they put us deeper in debt than the Dems have, ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/30 "2016-07-16T21:31:48Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Like a mortgage? We should all buy our homes with cash? No loans? I believe that you misunderstood what he meant. It’s irresponsible to refuse to pay your mortgage (or alternatively, refuse to agree to a mortgage after signing a contract to purchase a home) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/31 "2016-07-16T21:34:32Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > I believe that you misunderstood what he meant. It’s irresponsible to refuse to pay your mortgage (or alternatively, refuse to agree to a mortgage after signing a contract to purchase a home) Indeed i did. :smack: _mea culpa._ ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2016, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/32 "2016-07-16T23:45:19Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Because we’re nuts. The excuse is that Congress has the authority to borrow money. I believe that when Congress sets the spending and the revenue, it implicitly authorizes the ensuing debt. Instead, we have Congress setting the spending and the revenue, but they get to blame the president for wasting the public treasury when it’s time to authorize additional borrowing. Is it really like that? Why isn’t it like Dad telling the kids that they will be going to Disneyland for vacation next year with the funding mechanism left unstated? (Maybe Dad is getting a raise, cutting back on other items, or putting it on a credit card). When it comes time to authorize the charge on the card, why can’t Dad not approve the charge and say that some other expense needs cut that month? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/33 "2016-07-17T00:42:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Is it really like that? Why isn’t it like Dad telling the kids that they will be going to Disneyland for vacation next year with the funding mechanism left unstated? (Maybe Dad is getting a raise, cutting back on other items, or putting it on a credit card). > > When it comes time to authorize the charge on the card, why can’t Dad not approve the charge and say that some other expense needs cut that month? In real life, that means Congress has to cut those specific programs. Although the Republicans talk big about cutting programs they seldom do so. Why? Because the majority of the budget is devoted to mandatory spending - social security, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits and suchlike. Of the discretionary budget, more than 50% goes to the military. That leaves less than 15% for funding of everything else in the budget. Everything. In your analogy, that’s like Dad saying, let’s pay for Disneyland and cut somewhere else. The mortgage? Health care? Car payments? Clothing? Food? You can talk about cutting out Starbucks, but that is a tiny fraction of what you need. Wherever you trim will really hurt - and have a constituency screaming that you can’t cut it. The total federal budget is $3.8 trillion. 15% of that is $570 billion. The last debt ceiling rise, in March 2015, rose the debt ceiling from $17,212 trillion to $18,113 trillion, or $901 billion. In short words, cutting programs to cover the increased debt would essentially wipe out everything the federal government does. Everything. Every single thing. And then take half of the military. No matter how much this might be a conservative wet dream, it’s ridiculous. Only people who have no understanding of the world they live in would even mention it. The U.S. budget is not like your home budget. It’s time everybody learned this. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/34 "2016-07-17T01:43:46Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > In real life, that means Congress has to cut those specific programs. Although the Republicans talk big about cutting programs they seldom do so. Why? Because the majority of the budget is devoted to mandatory spending - social security, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits and suchlike. Of the discretionary budget, more than 50% goes to the military. That leaves less than 15% for funding of everything else in the budget. Everything. > > In your analogy, that’s like Dad saying, let’s pay for Disneyland and cut somewhere else. The mortgage? Health care? Car payments? Clothing? Food? You can talk about cutting out Starbucks, but that is a tiny fraction of what you need. Wherever you trim will really hurt - and have a constituency screaming that you can’t cut it. > > The total federal budget is $3.8 trillion. 15% of that is $570 billion. The last debt ceiling rise, in March 2015, rose the debt ceiling from $17,212 trillion to $18,113 trillion, or $901 billion. In short words, cutting programs to cover the increased debt would essentially wipe out everything the federal government does. Everything. Every single thing. And then take half of the military. > > No matter how much this might be a conservative wet dream, it’s ridiculous. Only people who have no understanding of the world they live in would even mention it. The U.S. budget is not like your home budget. It’s time everybody learned this. It’s good being in charge of the global reserve currency. What happens if that changes? No more unconstrained spending. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/35 "2016-07-17T01:47:31Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > It’s good being in charge of the global reserve currency. What happens if that changes? No more unconstrained spending. Right. And all the other countries in the world have no debt because of their _not_ being the global reserve currency. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/36 "2016-07-17T03:37:02Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Right. And all the other countries in the world have no debt because of their _not_ being the global reserve currency. :smack: Did you not read the adverb? It makes a tiny bit of difference that your response to a non existent argument fails to address.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/37 "2016-07-17T06:21:03Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > It’s good being in charge of the global reserve currency. What happens if that changes? No more unconstrained spending. No, not really. The US does benefit from seniorage. And there’s the possibility, under some circumstances, that investors will decide that Japanese and European budget deficits are far more sustainable than US ones. Not bloody likely right now - quite the opposite. If that happens, the US dollar will crash. Imports will become more expensive and exports more competitive. A recession could result. Of course dollar crashes could also occur if the US renegs on its debt, something that no Democratic administration would allow to happen, absent sabotage by a Republican congress. If the US government finds itself issuing bonds in foreign currency, that could create a real problem. But we’re not there yet. In short, you need to add some detail to your scenario. There’s a saying. If I owe a bank 1 million dollars, it’s my problem. If I owe a bank 1 billion dollars, it’s their problem. That the Chinese government has chosen to buy a lot of US government and mortgage backed bonds isn’t our problem - it’s their’s. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/38 "2016-07-17T15:14:21Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Did you not read the adverb? It makes a tiny bit of difference that your response to a non existent argument fails to address.:smack: You’re saying that you somehow believe our spending today to be _unconstrained_? That’s a less sensible argument than the one I thought you were making. And you saw my response to that. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/39 "2016-07-17T18:07:21Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > In real life, that means Congress has to cut those specific programs. Although the Republicans talk big about cutting programs they seldom do so. Why? Because the majority of the budget is devoted to mandatory spending - social security, Medicaid, veteran’s benefits and suchlike. Of the discretionary budget, more than 50% goes to the military. That leaves less than 15% for funding of everything else in the budget. Everything. > > In your analogy, that’s like Dad saying, let’s pay for Disneyland and cut somewhere else. The mortgage? Health care? Car payments? Clothing? Food? You can talk about cutting out Starbucks, but that is a tiny fraction of what you need. Wherever you trim will really hurt - and have a constituency screaming that you can’t cut it. > > The total federal budget is $3.8 trillion. 15% of that is $570 billion. The last debt ceiling rise, in March 2015, rose the debt ceiling from $17,212 trillion to $18,113 trillion, or $901 billion. In short words, cutting programs to cover the increased debt would essentially wipe out everything the federal government does. Everything. Every single thing. And then take half of the military. > > No matter how much this might be a conservative wet dream, it’s ridiculous. Only people who have no understanding of the world they live in would even mention it. The U.S. budget is not like your home budget. It’s time everybody learned this. I understand that it is not like a home budget. However, the promise of something in the future IS exactly the same. Just because someone says that next year we are going to spend money on X, there is no implication that it must be borrowed money to do so. Many times when this promise is made, the unstated implication is “assuming we can afford it.” When Dad says we are going to Disneyland next year, does that mean, full stop, that the vacation is going on the credit card, or that come hell or high water, the family will go on the vacation no matter the intervening circumstances? Because the law requires congressional approval to raise the debt ceiling, a fairer implication is that Congress approves these expenditures if it can be paid for with current funds, and will be paid for with borrowed funds only if subsequently agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625/40 "2016-07-17T18:43:03Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Because the law requires congressional approval to raise the debt ceiling, a fairer implication is that Congress approves these expenditures if it can be paid for with current funds, and will be paid for with borrowed funds only if subsequently agreed. I’d say instead that you are the only person in the world to believe this. Can you cite any actual members of Congress to use this excuse? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/situations-where-fighting-a-raise-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-appropriate/759625.md?page=3)