Situations where fighting a raise to the debt ceiling is appropriate

[Obsidian]

@UltraVires

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.

This is like Dad being a teacher who gets a paycheck 9 months out of the year. But Dad sets up a budget like he gets that paycheck 12 months of the year, knowing that when he gets to the summer, he’ll have to put expenses on his credit card. His wife pays bills and buys food and clothes and lessons for the kids based on the budget her husband gave her.

Summer rolls around, Dad’s out of money, but instead of breaking out the MasterCard, he lectures his kids about fiscal responsibility and the evilness of debt, then shrugs and lets his family go hungry, the utilities get turned off and the house go into foreclosure.

Yay for him, he doesn’t have any extra debt. He’s also destroyed his credit for the better part of a decade (and is probably, at this point, in the middle of a divorce).

[octopus]

@Exapno_Mapcase

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 hope I don’t get the dreaded double forehead smack.

[octopus]

@Obsidian

This is like Dad being a teacher who gets a paycheck 9 months out of the year. But Dad sets up a budget like he gets that paycheck 12 months of the year, knowing that when he gets to the summer, he’ll have to put expenses on his credit card. His wife pays bills and buys food and clothes and lessons for the kids based on the budget her husband gave her.

Summer rolls around, Dad’s out of money, but instead of breaking out the MasterCard, he lectures his kids about fiscal responsibility and the evilness of debt, then shrugs and lets his family go hungry, the utilities get turned off and the house go into foreclosure.

Yay for him, he doesn’t have any extra debt. He’s also destroyed his credit for the better part of a decade (and is probably, at this point, in the middle of a divorce).

If Dad were wise he’d save for those three months instead of living off of credit. Dad needs financial discipline.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@octopus

If Dad were wise he’d save for those three months instead of living off of credit. Dad needs financial discipline.

Already answered.

@Exapno_Mapcase

The U.S. budget is not like your home budget. It’s time everybody learned this.

[Velocity]

@Obsidian

this is like Dad being a teacher who gets a paycheck 9 months out of the year. But Dad sets up a budget like he gets that paycheck 12 months of the year

And therein lies the problem.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Velocity

And therein lies the problem.

What does that have to do with the debt ceiling?

[OldGuy]

@UltraVires

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.

That’s not what it is. It’s like Dad saying we’re going to Disneyland. The family not having the cash but going to Disneyland in any case and using their credit card. And only then saying oops sorry we’re not going to pay off the credit card to the bank.

[tim-n-va]

@Ravenman

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.

I was away for a few days and this might be moot.

The point is that they have already decided not to raise taxes and not to cut spending. Those were options but when it gets to the debt ceiling decision and you’ve already rejected them, the only options are raise the ceiling or default. They complain about a decision that they created.