Debt Ceiling Impact

[TLSnell1981]

Sadly it's a game and we are the pawns. What happens when we deplete our personal resources? Personally I believe most buckle down and trim the fat. Notice I didn't say cut essential programs for those most in need.

 

[RamblingMad]

Sadly it's a game and we are the pawns. What happens when we deplete our personal resources? Personally I believe most buckle down and trim the fat. Notice I didn't say cut essential programs for those most in need.

If you look at the side effects, the neediest get hurt the most. The cost to borrow will go up over the next month. Plan for it. And the cuts that are being pushed also hurt them.

 

[TLSnell1981]

If you look at the side effects, the neediest get hurt the most. The cost to borrow will go up over the next month. Plan for it. And the cuts that are being pushed also hurt them.

Unfortunate but likely true. Meanwhile they will continue funding their pet projects and ignore the needy.

 

[dioxide45]

The time to reign in spending is annually during all the budget decisions. Not after you've put the money out there.

They spend money outside of budget decisions, why can't they make cuts outside them too? All year long is a spending opportunity. There isn't anything annual about it.

 

[RamblingMad]

They spend money outside of budget decisions, why can't they make cuts outside them too? All year long is a spending opportunity. There isn't anything annual about it.

They agree to a budget and then disagree about spending money on it. It's a mess.

 

[dioxide45]

They agree to a budget and then disagree about spending money on it. It's a mess.

Well, the people that approved the budget (2023 spending) are different than the people not wanting to increase the limit without conditions now. So to say they agreed to the budget isn't 100% true.

 

[Disney Bobby]

The current proposed budget is $6.8 TRILLION dollars. That's only $400 billion short of the $7.2 TRILLION dollars spent in the worse year of COVID.

That is ridiculous. A balanced budget needs to be part of the solution. Not fair to future generations to charge up their credit card for our spending today. Somebody will have to pay one day, and there aren't enough "rich" people to cover it, even if you tax them at 100%.

 

[RamblingMad]

The current proposed budget is $6.8 TRILLION dollars. That's only $400 billion short of the $7.2 TRILLION dollars spent in the worse year of COVID.

That is ridiculous. A balanced budget needs to be part of the solution. Not fair to future generations to charge up their credit card for our spending today. Somebody will have to pay one day, and there aren't enough "rich" people to cover it, even if you tax them at 100%.

Gotta tax everybody. Lots of people don't pay any taxes.

 

[Kwami]

The current proposed budget is $6.8 TRILLION dollars. That's only $400 billion short of the $7.2 TRILLION dollars spent in the worse year of COVID.

That is ridiculous. A balanced budget needs to be part of the solution. Not fair to future generations to charge up their credit card for our spending today. Somebody will have to pay one day, and there aren't enough "rich" people to cover it, even if you tax them at 100%.

Neat. Fight about it in September when the new budget needs to be passed. It has nothing to do with the debt ceiling, which needs to cover the current budget.

 

[dioxide45]

That it's being used to force a default now is ridiculous. And let's not pretend that this is a both-sides thing, either. Only one side constantly does this. But, I suppose that we can't get too political.

That one side you are referring to has already passed a bill in the house to increase the limit.

 

[john7994]

Sadly it's a game and we are the pawns. What happens when we deplete our personal resources? Personally I believe most buckle down and trim the fat. Notice I didn't say cut essential programs for those most in need.

Us pawns voted those playing "the game" into office ... based on average tenure, we apparently knew what we were getting. Perhaps, its time to stop making this a career for people that might not be as concerned about governing or being held accountable ...

The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 118th Congress was 8.5 years (4.3 House terms); for Senators, 11.2 years (1.9 Senate terms).

 

[RamblingMad]

Regardless, the 2023 budget is the law. Congress has already authorized that money to be spent. The executive branch must, by law, spend that money. They have no discretion in the matter thanks to the laws passed after Nixon kept impounding funds that he didn't want to spend.

The debt ceiling was actually created during WW1 to make it easier for the government to spend money without having to constantly bother Congress about it. That it's being used to force a default now is ridiculous. And let's not pretend that this is a both-sides thing, either. Only one side constantly does this. But, I suppose that we can't get too political.

In any case, we've been told by multiple high-ranking officials that there isn't really a way to prioritize one kind of payment over others. The system isn't set up that way and there's no law to allow it, anyway. So, if we do default, then Social Security, government salaries, and every other kind of payment are equally likely to be reduced or delayed until the debt ceiling is lifted or we find some other way around it. Hopefully, it doesn't come to that.

Let's stick with simple facts. Here's the wiki page from the last time this happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis

Scroll down to the debt ceiling debate to see this is a rerun of what has happened in the past. Nothing new to see here. No reason to stress out. It's 2013 all over again.

 

[jo-jo]

Us pawns voted those playing "the game" into office ... based on average tenure, we apparently knew what we were getting. Perhaps, its time to stop making this a career for people that might not be as concerned about governing or being held accountable ...

The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 118th Congress was 8.5 years (4.3 House terms); for Senators, 11.2 years (1.9 Senate terms).

I thought most were in since the beginning of time.

 

[RamblingMad]

Neat. Fight about it in September when the new budget needs to be passed. It has nothing to do with the debt ceiling, which needs to cover the current budget.

That's exactly what the treasury website says:

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-is...al-institutions-and-fiscal-service/debt-limit

The debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past.

 

[john7994]

I thought most were in since the beginning of time.

quite a few have been ... it is only an average

 

[Kwami]

LOL. The current President himself, as a Senator, voted "Nay" to raising the debt ceiling in 2003.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1081/vote_108_1_00202.htm

And in 2004 (actually, he didn't even bother to vote)

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1082/vote_108_2_00213.htm

And in 2006, another "Nay"

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1092/vote_109_2_00054.htm

So, yeah, let's not pretend about anything.

Neat. However, in none of those situations was there an actual chance of default and everyone know that the debt ceiling increase would pass without any trouble. There's a massive difference between a protest vote and threatening default. Only one party constantly threatens default when the other party occupies the presidency. It doesn't happen the other way.

That one side you are referring to has already passed a bill in the house to increase the limit.

Oh, come on.

"Yeah, sure, we'll raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default. In exchange, please undo everything that you've done for the last two years and take away some of the support programs that poor people rely on."

Same nonsense as we saw in 2013.

Again, the debt ceiling needs to be increased to cover the current budget that's already been approved by Congress. This is not the time to be making demands for future spending commitments. That can happen in September when the new budget is negotiated.

Alternatively, just remove the debt ceiling entirely. It serves no purpose, it's probably unconstitutional, and honestly, one ridiculous budget fight a year is enough. We don't need this bonus fight.

 

[Buzz Rules]

If this is too political happy to delete but without getting into finger pointing on what side is right\wrong etc is anyone else starting to brace for potential impact if the debt ceiling is exceeded?

I was looking to book a November DCL cruise for my 40th but right now that is on hold as a few family members are heavily reliant on social security and those checks are in jeopardy. Another family member works for the government and honestly has no idea what will happen one way or another in regards to work. Of course we will help if need be so right now all extra expenditures are on hold.

Anyone else concerned?

No, I'm not concerned. A deal will happen before June 1. I'm percent sure.

 

[longboard55]

Next time the lower taxes they need to declare what will be cut to pay for the tax cut. That is the issue

 

[Kwami]

No, I'm not concerned. A deal will happen before June 1. I'm percent sure.

I sure hope so! My job depends on it, though somewhat indirectly.

 

[RamblingMad]

Next time the lower taxes they need to declare what will be cut to pay for the tax cut. That is the issue

This is simply a wealth transfer.