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.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate if this thread were entitled: “Situations where proposing the United States default on its debt payment is appropriate?”
Well, equivalent, anyway.
I wonder what the OP thinks of the information he’s been given in this thread.
No more than you can imply that they approved taxes be raised.
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.
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.
Congress has the power–the sole power*–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 authority for setting federal taxes.
*The President can veto 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, 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.
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,
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?