ADVERTISEMENT

Here’s why you better fear the crisis over the debt ceiling

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,423
62,528
113
Two weeks after warning House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other congressional leaders that the United States would crash through the debt ceiling on Nov. 5, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew sent another missive on Oct. 15 that moved up the drop-dead date to Nov. 3. Lew estimates that the United States would have $30 billion in cash on hand to pay the nation’s bills. With Boehner on the way out, no successor in waiting and all of Congress in recess until Monday, this is an outright crisis whose resolution might prove elusive.

As they did during the debt ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013, the good folks at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) have released a detailed look at the horrible choices facing this nation if Congress doesn’t raise the legal borrowing limit. Now, they measure the impending misery not by the Nov. 3 drop-dead date, but by the date they estimate Treasury would have to rely solely on daily revenues to meet its obligations. That “X date,” as they call it, is somewhere between Nov. 10 and Nov. 19. And what they estimate could happen in the first two days is beyond anything Americans have ever had to contemplate.

imrs.php

(Courtesy of Bipartisan Policy Center)
By BPC’s estimate, if the “X date” is Nov. 10, Treasury would get $6.4 billion in revenue that day to pay $23.1 billion in bills. That includes $14 billion in Social Security payments. On Nov.12, there would be new obligations totaling $12.9 billion with just $6.2 billion in revenue to meet them. That amount would cover the $4.6 billion in Medicaid and Medicare expenses due that day.

In those two days alone, Treasury would pull in just $12.6 billion to pay for $36 billion in bills. The federal government would be $23 billion in arrears. “Treasury would be about $68 billion short of paying all bills owed between Nov. 10 and [Nov.] 30” according to BPC. “Approximately 31 percent of the [government’s bills] would go unpaid.”

imrs.php

(Courtesy of Bipartisan Policy Center)
Now, let me repeat this because folks mess this up all the time. Raising the debt ceiling is not giving President Obama a blank check. Nor does it increase spending. Boosting the legal limit on federal borrowing — now resting at $18.1 trillion –allows the federal government to pay for purchases already authorized by Congress. To not raise it, as Lew has said many times, is like running up your credit cards and then ignoring the bills that follow. A surefire way to ruin your credit.

[What the debt ceiling is — and isn’t]

Failure to raise the debt ceiling would unleash hell on the U.S. economy. It would force the president to pick winners and losers, to choose between paying military salaries and food stamps, Social Security benefits and interest payments to bondholders. And the inability of Treasury to pay back the principal and interest due on maturing securities totalling about $450 billion between Oct. 15 and Nov. 30 would unleash a hell on global financial markets that is hard to imagine. Prioritizing payments or invoking the 14th amendment to avoid default are not options.

“Because Treasury securities are usually safe and liquid, they are treated as a foundation of the global financial system,” Shai Akabas, associate director of economic policy at BPC told me. “If those features are called into question, we do not know how severe the implications would be for broader financial markets.” Here’s what we do know. Failure to raise the debt ceiling for the first time in our nation’s history would obliterate that perception and destroy the full faith and credit of the United States


This is serious business that Congress will have just 10 working days to address. Meanwhile, Boehner is slated to leave Oct. 30. Even though he says he will stay until there is a successor, there is no timetable for when said person will be selected and elected by the House. Who that might be remains in flux as the “Paul Ryan is our savior” aura is now giving way to “Paul Ryan is not conservative enough” for the job.

And that turning on Ryan as not conservative enough is emblematic of the insanity roiling the Republican conference. When they took over the leadership of the House after the 2010 elections, the know-nothing majority promptly brought the nation to the brink of default in 2011. After the 2014 midterms, the GOP increased its majority to the largest since the elections of 1928, cost Boehner the speaker’s gavel and denied it to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. This is the same crew that was willing to shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood.

To think they would raise the debt ceiling without drama or rancor, without risking the creditworthiness of the United States, is foolish. To think Boehner won’t succeed in actually getting it done before he leaves the Capitol and that his successor won’t either is truly frightening.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...better-fear-the-crisis-over-the-debt-ceiling/
 
I still say don't raise the limit. Just print the money.

For those who are predictably scared by the thought of printing the money to pay the bills, how is that any more scary than borrowing the money to pay the bills?

Frankly, if I were Obama, not only would I print the money to pay the bills, but I would veto legislation to raise the debt ceiling unless it also included acceptable revenue raising measures to help pay the bills without either borrowing or printing money.

Two can play this game. But only one side seems to have figured that out.
 
Only one team has been successful in addressing the deficit in modern times. If this is a voting issue for you, Clinton is your choice.
Even Obama is better. Deficits are now lower than before Bush left office. Sure, the debt rose a lot and is still rising too fast, but the increase in debt usually declines under Dem administrations.
 
If you were covered in leeches you could worry about whether or not your body will be able to produce enough blood to feed them all.

Or you could do the sensible thing: just rip the bastards off and walk away.

It's time to quit feeding that which is killing us. :)
 
Failure to raise the debt ceiling would unleash hell on the U.S. economy. It would force the president to pick winners and losers, to choose between paying military salaries and food stamps, Social Security benefits and interest payments to bondholders. And the inability of Treasury to pay back the principal and interest due on maturing securities totalling about $450 billion between Oct. 15 and Nov. 30 would unleash a hell on global financial markets that is hard to imagine.

Well, I'm not a big Obama fan, but if the president is going to pick winners and losers, much better him than Romney and his cabal of neoliberal advisors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Even Obama is better. Deficits are now lower than before Bush left office. Sure, the debt rose a lot and is still rising too fast, but the increase in debt usually declines under Dem administrations.
I think Clinton did a better job than Obama at producing progress on lowering debt and deficits. What's fun is that cons never do a good job on this front, yet pretend to care a great deal. Cons are bad at math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I still say don't raise the limit. Just print the money.

For those who are predictably scared by the thought of printing the money to pay the bills, how is that any more scary than borrowing the money to pay the bills?

Frankly, if I were Obama, not only would I print the money to pay the bills, but I would veto legislation to raise the debt ceiling unless it also included acceptable revenue raising measures to help pay the bills without either borrowing or printing money.

Two can play this game. But only one side seems to have figured that out.
Which side would that be?
 
If you were covered in leeches you could worry about whether or not your body will be able to produce enough blood to feed them all.

Or you could do the sensible thing: just rip the bastards off and walk away.

It's time to quit feeding that which is killing us. :)
As fearful as that seems to people, it's the only sensible thing to do. The American public, government, and economy is going to have to come to reality eventually.
 
If you were covered in leeches you could worry about whether or not your body will be able to produce enough blood to feed them all.

Or you could do the sensible thing: just rip the bastards off and walk away.

It's time to quit feeding that which is killing us. :)
Sorry, our justice system, our food safety programs, our military, our safety net, our education system . . . these are not leeches. They are programs nearly all Americans want our government to undertake.

Even the most aggressive spending cutters of recent years have yet to produce a balanced budget without projecting it out into a future when they won't be accountable.

We don't need to kill the programs that Americans want. We just have to take responsibility and pay for them.
 
Only one side regularly threatens to hold the debt ceiling hostage.

Please pay better attention.
Sure, while the other side tries to constantly raise it? It seems we have two different problems trying to see who can cause more problems together.
The Cons don't care, and the Liberals need to make enough moves to make them look good. Is that what I should be paying attention to?
 
I still say don't raise the limit. Just print the money.

For those who are predictably scared by the thought of printing the money to pay the bills, how is that any more scary than borrowing the money to pay the bills?

Frankly, if I were Obama, not only would I print the money to pay the bills, but I would veto legislation to raise the debt ceiling unless it also included acceptable revenue raising measures to help pay the bills without either borrowing or printing money.

Two can play this game. But only one side seems to have figured that out.

You understand that the Federal Reserve isn't federal, right? You see, they'll print the money and lend it to the banks at near 0%. Then the banks will turn around and lend it to the federal government at 3%. So, what you're really advocating here is making the rich bankers even richer, which seems pretty ironic considering your signature.
 
Sure, while the other side tries to constantly raise it? It seems we have two different problems trying to see who can cause more problems together.
The Cons don't care, and the Liberals need to make enough moves to make them look good. Is that what I should be paying attention to?
You should be seeing through the chaff to notice that the GOP is threatening to shut down the government.

You seem to be saying that the Dems are pointing it out and that's equally bad. That simply isn't reasonable thinking. Pointing out a serious threat is not even slightly the same as making a serious threat.

Nor is calling to raise the debt limit a threat of any kind. As someone already pointed out - for the umpteenth time - the money was already authorized and spent and now we have to pay the bill. All raising the ceiling does is give the treasury permission to pay the bill.

Again, not even in the same ballpark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
You understand that the Federal Reserve isn't federal, right? You see, they'll print the money and lend it to the banks at near 0%. Then the banks will turn around and lend it to the federal government at 3%. So, what you're really advocating here is making the rich bankers even richer, which seems pretty ironic considering your signature.
Well done!

Debt is more powerful than atomic bombs and plagues.
 
You should be seeing through the chaff to notice that the GOP is threatening to shut down the government.

You seem to be saying that the Dems are pointing it out and that's equally bad. That simply isn't reasonable thinking. Pointing out a serious threat is not even slightly the same as making a serious threat.

Nor is calling to raise the debt limit a threat of any kind. As someone already pointed out - for the umpteenth time - the money was already authorized and spent and now we have to pay the bill. All raising the ceiling does is give the treasury permission to pay the bill.

Again, not even in the same ballpark.

Anytime the government has to raise the debt limit it's detrimental to the poor and middle class. Inflation hits them disproportionately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shank hawk
This is where partisanship is blatantly obvious, and equally destructive. These actions do more harm than wars. You're tightening the grip a little bit more on the lower classes every time this little issue comes around. That's not even mentioning that this system is going to collapse. I highly doubt there's a contingency for that when it comes to the lower classes. Even the upper class is going to get smacked-down when that happens. THEN it's going to get interesting!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
This is where partisanship is blatantly obvious, and equally destructive. These actions do more harm than wars. You're tightening the grip a little bit more on the lower classes every time this little issue comes around. That's not even mentioning that this system is going to collapse. I highly doubt there's a contingency for that when it comes to the lower classes. Even the upper class is going to get smacked-down when that happens. THEN it's going to get interesting!
Well done!

Debt is more powerful than atomic bombs and plagues.

Nothing could take down the Roman Empire...except defacing their currency.
 
You should be seeing through the chaff to notice that the GOP is threatening to shut down the government.

You seem to be saying that the Dems are pointing it out and that's equally bad. That simply isn't reasonable thinking. Pointing out a serious threat is not even slightly the same as making a serious threat.

Nor is calling to raise the debt limit a threat of any kind. As someone already pointed out - for the umpteenth time - the money was already authorized and spent and now we have to pay the bill. All raising the ceiling does is give the treasury permission to pay the bill.

Again, not even in the same ballpark.
Sure. But, isn't the fact that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling "over a hundred times" - and, thus, has had to keep raising it - proof that raising the limit does, in fact, lead to increased debt?
 
You understand that the Federal Reserve isn't federal, right? You see, they'll print the money and lend it to the banks at near 0%. Then the banks will turn around and lend it to the federal government at 3%. So, what you're really advocating here is making the rich bankers even richer, which seems pretty ironic considering your signature.
Don't be an idiot. I have been pointing this out for years and that is NOT even slightly what I am suggesting.

I am suggesting - as I have many times before (every ceiling debt crisis and on other occasions, too) - that we print the money. Try reading my comments. Those are the plain words I use.

We cut out the middle man. We don't pay a surcharge (interest) to use our own money. We just print it and spend it. We don't print it and let banks leverage it into many multiples of "created" value. We print it and pay the bills with it.

I seem to be having to ask a lot of people to pay better attention today. Is it something in the water?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Don't be an idiot. I have been pointing this out for years and that is NOT even slightly what I am suggesting.

I am suggesting - as I have many times before (every ceiling debt crisis and on other occasions, too) - that we print the money. Try reading my comments. Those are the plain words I use.

We cut out the middle man. We don't pay a surcharge (interest) to use our own money. We just print it and spend it. We don't print it and let banks leverage it into many multiples of "created" value. We print it and pay the bills with it.

I seem to be having to ask a lot of people to pay better attention today. Is it something in the water?

You understand that we don't control our own money supply, right? So, what you're advocating CAN'T BE DONE.
 
Anytime the government has to raise the debt limit it's detrimental to the poor and middle class. Inflation hits them disproportionately.
That's a monumentally stupid thing to say.

Raising the debt ceiling affects nothing except our ability to pay already-authorized bills. It does not create new bills.

How is paying the bills detrimental to the poor and middle class? Really. I'd love to see you try to explain that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Don't be an idiot. I have been pointing this out for years and that is NOT even slightly what I am suggesting.

I am suggesting - as I have many times before (every ceiling debt crisis and on other occasions, too) - that we print the money. Try reading my comments. Those are the plain words I use.

We cut out the middle man. We don't pay a surcharge (interest) to use our own money. We just print it and spend it. We don't print it and let banks leverage it into many multiples of "created" value. We print it and pay the bills with it.

I seem to be having to ask a lot of people to pay better attention today. Is it something in the water?
What you've just said here is not just wrong, but cannot and will not happen? The Fed makes that call, you understand that correct?
 
That's a monumentally stupid thing to say.

Raising the debt ceiling affects nothing except our ability to pay already-authorized bills. It does not create new bills.

How is paying the bills detrimental to the poor and middle class? Really. I'd love to see you try to explain that.

Raising the debt ceiling infuses the economy with more fiat money, which causes inflation, which disproportionately hurts the poor and middle class.
 
What on Earth makes you think - much less say - something so absurd? Of course we can print our own money.

Yelling that it can't be done doesn't make it true.

Who is we? Without having a hissy fit, could you soundly and effectively explain what you are trying to point out here? Start off with who 'we' are in your argument about printing money.
 
Don't be an idiot. I have been pointing this out for years and that is NOT even slightly what I am suggesting.

I am suggesting - as I have many times before (every ceiling debt crisis and on other occasions, too) - that we print the money. Try reading my comments. Those are the plain words I use.

We cut out the middle man. We don't pay a surcharge (interest) to use our own money. We just print it and spend it. We don't print it and let banks leverage it into many multiples of "created" value. We print it and pay the bills with it.

I seem to be having to ask a lot of people to pay better attention today. Is it something in the water?

Are there any reputable economic experts who agree with your "just print some money" solution?
 
We CAN. We don't but we CAN. Ands that's what I am advocating.

Or do you have some reason for thinking we can't?
And, until we repeal that Federal Reserve Act, all of thse other things you're advocating are just making the situation worse and harder to ever repeal. Not to mention, the repercussions even more of a struggle.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT