Democrats push to eliminate the debt ceiling, allow unlimited government borrowing

[jonny5]

Latest on the debt ceiling debate

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden cast Republicans as representing the party of "chaos and catastrophe" on Thursday and sharply criticized their refusal to approve an increase in the U.S. debt ceiling unless they get a deal on spending cuts.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, has vowed not to approve a debt ceiling increase unless Biden and his fellow Democrats reach a negotiated deal with Republicans on cutting future government spending.

"We must finally address Washington’s irresponsible government spending if we want to put America on a better fiscal path," McCarthy wrote on Thursday.

Biden called McCarthy's position "mind-boggling."

Politics. If Bidens so concerned, whats he offering to get it done? Why didnt he insist on raising the ceiling a few weeks ago when they had control of both branches and passed a massive spending bill? Why doesnt the media ask him any of his?

 

[Kushinator]

Why didnt he insist on raising the ceiling a few weeks ago when they had control of both branches

Not only is your knowledge of economics weak at best, but you don't understand how such legislation is passed, or the dynamics involved.

 

[Gatsby]

The obvious question here is why didnt they do this the last two years when they had control of congress and the white house?

Good question. They absolutely should have.

This would of course be disastrous. We are already paying 500bn a year just to service the existing debt. Removing the limit altogether would remove one ability to limit excessive spending, which would further increase the debt leading to further wasted interest payment and more fiscal crisies, and slow the economy.

No it wouldn't. The only thing that would change is that it would remove the big red button that says "Press Here To Blow Up The Global Economy," which Republicans have been dying to press for over a decade.

 

[jonny5]

Good question. They absolutely should have.

No it wouldn't. The only thing that would change is that it would remove the big red button that says "Press Here To Blow Up The Global Economy," which Republicans have been dying to press for over a decade.

Hyperbole. I agree with the CBO

Consequences of Growth in the Debt​

If federal debt as a percentage of GDP continues to rise at the pace of CBO’s current-law projections, the economy would be affected in two significant ways: Growth in the nation’s debt would dampen economic output over time, and higher interest costs would increase payments to foreign debt holders and thus reduce the income of U.S. households by rising amounts.

The increases in debt that CBO projects would also pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook, although those risks are not currently apparent in financial markets. In addition, high debt might cause policymakers to feel constrained from implementing deficit-financed fiscal policy to respond to unforeseen events or for other purposes, such as to promote economic activity or strengthen national defense. Negative economic and financial effects that were less abrupt but still significant—such as expectations of higher inflation or an increased burden of financing public and private activity—would also have a greater chance of occurring. Those effects would worsen the consequences associated with high and rising federal debt.

 

[jonny5]

Latest on the debt ceiling. Meeting soon. Biden wants McCarthy to commit to no default and tell him when their budget will be out. Biden may not know this but the way the budget process works is the President submits his request first.

The default thing is just a gotcha. McCarthy should just committ and then put it back on Biden. Will you committ to no default by cutting spending? Ill increase the ceiling TODAY!

Biden releases debt ceiling memo with two questions for McCarthy ahead of meeting

 

[jonny5]

Meh, typical Biden rhetoric.

Under the previous administration, America’s deficit went up four years in a row.

Because of those record deficits, no president added more to the national debt in any four years than my predecessor.

Nearly 25% of the entire national debt, a debt that took 200 years to accumulate, was added by that administration alone.

How did Congress respond to all that debt?

They lifted the debt ceiling three times without preconditions or crisis.

Complains about debt and debt ceiling, but has already seen 4 trillion added to it and didnt raise the debt ceiling to cover the spending he signed. Worse, his budget proposed adding another 14 trillion.

No credibility to complain. And Obama "added" 50% of the debt in his admin alone, more than Bidens predecessor.

 

[jonny5]

Latest on the debt ceiling. No change. Biden says this is is a crisis, but yet I still dont see him down in McCarthys office trying to work out something. CBO says we have cash, which is true. We take in more than enough revenue so there will be no default, nor even a possiblity of default. The worst that will happen is some agencies wont be able to buy office supplies because the democrat congresses 2 trillion in checks bounced.

The Treasury can also use its cash balance to extend the time that the department is able to continue financing government operations without issuing debt. On January 31, 2023, the Treasury had nearly $568 billion in cash. CBO estimates that the cash balance, combined with the room made available for borrowing by taking the measures listed above, would allow the Treasury to finance the government’s operations until sometime in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2023 without increasing or suspending the debt limit.

Federal Debt and the Statutory Limit, February 2023

The debt limit—commonly called the debt ceiling—is the maximum amount of debt that the Department of the Treasury can issue to the public or to other federal agencies. The amount is set by law and has been increased or suspended over the years to allow for the additional borrowing needed to...

www.cbo.gov

 

[Cope]

Speak for yourself.

I'll allow the DNA to speak for itself.

Are you confused about what you've originally decided to respond to?

Not at all, you said mandated shutdowns weren't a thing that really affected anything business related. Not only is that comically wrong, but it was shown to you numerous times, and yet you are still flailing about.

It has already been established that businesses were closing on their own long before any mandate. You've admitted as much and then went on to contradict yourself.

Not nearly all or most of them, so no. Try again. I didn't admit to anything. I simply said that the businesses that WANTED to close down, did, while the others that did not want to were MADE.

That's why we can't have nice things. The stupids ruin everything.

Agreed. So stop.

 

[RealityNow]

Why didn't the debt ceiling matter when Trump was President?

They think America belongs to them and they assume they can do anything they want without regard for anyone or anything but people who look like them.
What they want in fighting against raising the debt ... is to pursue another tax credit for the well to do and wealthy, by trying to take something from the people in order to get that tax cut to the wealthy.

 

[Kushinator]

I'll allow the DNA to speak for itself.

DNA doesn't lead people to support white nationalism, alternative facts, etc....

Not at all, you said mandated shutdowns weren't a thing that really affected anything business related.

This is a lie. Here is my statement:

That mandated shutdowns didn't really shut down much of anything other than where crowds of people were concerned.

There is no excuse for your shit posting.

Not only is that comically wrong, but it was shown to you numerous times, and yet you are still flailing about.

I've already addressed your strawman. I went on to explain that certain businesses would try to remain open due to unscrupulous business practices. Do i need to remind you with a quote? Don't bother responding as it's right here:

restaurants, bars, strip clubs, etc... that would have refused to close were operated by the types who would have shown up on Jan 6th.

In-n-Out didn't believe in Covid-19.

Not nearly all or most of them, so no. Try again.

You have no way to validate this statement. It's all based on partisan ignorance.

I simply said that the businesses that WANTED to close down, did, while the others that did not want to were MADE.

We had mandates to reduce the spread of the virus. People who didn't give a **** about their customers, employees, etc... don't get a free pass. There is no point in arguing with stupid.

 

[Cope]

DNA doesn't lead people to support white nationalism, alternative facts, etc....

This is a lie. Here is my statement:

Yep, that was your statement. Which i replied with like shopping stores and restaurants, which you are flailing about hoping to hit something with the shit. Without the mandate some stores/restaurants would have remained opened. End. You'd vilify them, of course, but they would still have remained open.

There is no excuse for your shit posting.

This is rich coming from a guy standing on sand , making claims of stability.

I've already addressed your strawman. I went on to explain that certain businesses would try to remain open due to unscrupulous business practices. Do i need to remind you with a quote? Don't bother responding as it's right here:

So now they would only want to remain open because of 'unscrupulous' practices? What in the ever loving **** are you on about? Those unscrupulous practices like MAKING MONEY? SERVING THE PUBLIC?

You have no way to validate this statement. It's all based on partisan ignorance.

Yes, your own.

We had mandates to reduce the spread of the virus. People who didn't give a **** about their customers, employees, etc... don't get a free pass. There is no point in arguing with stupid.

We had mandates, that much is correct.

Forced mandates that have harmed MANY in the US financially. Undeniable.

 

[MTAtech]

...

This would of course be disastrous. We are already paying 500bn a year just to service the existing debt. Removing the limit altogether would remove one ability to limit excessive spending, which would further increase the debt leading to further wasted interest payment and more fiscal crisies, and slow the economy.

MSN

Has the debt ceiling been a damper on historical spending? No. So what makes you think keeping the debt ceiling will be a future damper on spending? What limits spending is lowering spending in the budget. What reduces deficits is revenues that match budgetary spending. What he had for decades is passage of tax-cuts without any regard to their impact on deficits -- along with fallacious statements that they'll pay for themselves, which they never did.

 

[MTAtech]

How Much Does the Average American Pay in Taxes?

There are several factors that impact U.S. tax rates, but you can average it out. Learn what the average American pays in federal income tax and more.

www.thebalancemoney.com

• The top 50% of taxpayers paid 97.1% of all federal income taxes in 2018. Among those taxpayers, the average income tax rate was 14.6% and the average tax paid was $20,663.
• In 2019, the top 1% income earners paid 38.77% of total income taxes paid that year.8

MARGINAL TAX RATE	INCOME THRESHOLD
10%	$0 to $10,275
12%	$10,275 to $41,775
22%	$41,745 to $89,075
24%	$89,075 to $170,050
32%	$170,050 to $215,950
35%	$215,950 to $539,900
37%	$539,900 or more

While the top "50%" may have paid 97.1% of all federal INCOME taxes, the statement ignores payroll taxes, which 67.5 percent of taxpayers will owe more in payroll taxes than in income taxes in 2022.



Also, "the top 50%" catches many middle income persons. To be in the top half (50%) of all earners you need to earn just more than $25,000 a year.

Moreover, it groups the ultra-rich, who don't pay their share, among the top 50%, which hides how little they pay.

The Forbes 400 paid an average income tax rate of 8.2 percent from 2010 to 2018​

The main reason the top 400 pay such a low tax rate is that a very large share of their income is in the form of unrealized capital gains—appreciation in the value of their assets, mostly stocks and other business interests. Because of a tax code feature known as “stepped-up basis,” unrealized gain on an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is not sold during the owner’s lifetime. As a result, much of the income of the wealthiest families in the country never appears on their income tax returns.

 

[Kushinator]

which you are flailing about hoping to hit something with the shit. Without the mandate some stores/restaurants would have remained opened. End.

This isn't the contention, which is why I continue to go back to the beginning of this exchange.

doesn't have to instant crash and after the Democrats cashed it all in 2020 .... I mean they're not the people to ask about that kinda thing right ? (covid shutdowns)

The comment you responded to:

Newsflash. Businesses were shutting down and the economy was going into recession regardless of whether there were mandated shutdowns.

This is a direct refutation... Democrats didn't crash anything by believing in science and heeding to the experts.

You'd vilify them, of course, but they would still have remained open.

Irrelevant. The economy was contracting from the shock factor of the pandemic regardless if some stragglers would have resisted. By paying people for the inconvenience of lockdown, the largest bombardment of fiscal stimulus EVER ensured a swift rebound with overwhelming ferocity.

So now they would only want to remain open because of 'unscrupulous' practices? What in the ever loving **** are you on about? Those unscrupulous practices like MAKING MONEY? SERVING THE PUBLIC?

We were in the initial stages of a pandemic. Pretending like it didn't exist might be a political cry to rally and yet outside of a few bumper sticker quotes, Republican ability to actually govern has ben abandoned. It's why there wasn't a red wave

Yes, your own.

Your statement is based on your claim of my partisan ignorance? How truly clever.

We had mandates, that much is correct.

Nobody has denied mandates. Your position comes from such level of weakness that you're wasting time attacking men of straw. The Democrats didn't crash anything... the crash was already here. The U.S. officially went into recession in February 2020, well before any mandates you're trying to reference. People were getting stuck on COVID-19 ridden ships long after the initial shockwave had ripped through the economy. It was happening across the globe.

Forced mandates that have harmed MANY in the US financially. Undeniable.

More strawman bullshit. Never have i claimed anything to contrary.

Look... it's obvious you're not capable of reading a post and responding to it with any semblance of reason or rationality. I repeat:

Newsflash. Businesses were shutting down and the economy was going into recession regardless of whether there were mandated shutdowns.

 

[Cope]

This isn't the contention, which is why I continue to go back to the beginning of this exchange.

The comment you responded to:

This is a direct refutation... Democrats didn't crash anything by believing in science and heeding to the experts.

Irrelevant. The economy was contracting from the shock factor of the pandemic regardless if some stragglers would have resisted. By paying people for the inconvenience of lockdown, the largest bombardment of fiscal stimulus EVER ensured a swift rebound with overwhelming ferocity.

We were in the initial stages of a pandemic. Pretending like it didn't exist might be a political cry to rally and yet outside of a few bumper sticker quotes, Republican ability to actually govern has ben abandoned. It's why there wasn't a red wave

Your statement is based on your claim of my partisan ignorance? How truly clever.

Nobody has denied mandates. Your position comes from such level of weakness that you're wasting time attacking men of straw. The Democrats didn't crash anything... the crash was already here. The U.S. officially went into recession in February 2020, well before any mandates you're trying to reference. People were getting stuck on COVID-19 ridden ships long after the initial shockwave had ripped through the economy. It was happening across the globe.

More strawman bullshit. Never have i claimed anything to contrary.

Look... it's obvious you're not capable of reading a post and responding to it with any semblance of reason or rationality. I repeat:

You entire post seems to rely on me blaming the Democrats for the entirety of our economic climate, and attempting to defend them with your dying breath.

I haven't made that claim. I simply made the claim that the forced mandate contributed to the destruction of some businesses. Those businesses MIGHT still be viable today, EXCEPT for the mandate.
You seem keen on attacks of your strawmen but are lacking with the claim I actually made.

 

[bave]

While the top "50%" may have paid 97.1% of all federal INCOME taxes, the statement ignores payroll taxes, which 67.5 percent of taxpayers will owe more in payroll taxes than in income taxes in 2022.

View attachment 67437472

Also, "the top 50%" catches many middle income persons. To be in the top half (50%) of all earners you need to earn just more than $25,000 a year.

Moreover, it groups the ultra-rich, who don't pay their share, among the top 50%, which hides how little they pay.

The Forbes 400 paid an average income tax rate of 8.2 percent from 2010 to 2018​

The main reason the top 400 pay such a low tax rate is that a very large share of their income is in the form of unrealized capital gains—appreciation in the value of their assets, mostly stocks and other business interests. Because of a tax code feature known as “stepped-up basis,” unrealized gain on an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is not sold during the owner’s lifetime. As a result, much of the income of the wealthiest families in the country never appears on their income tax returns.

I think that headline says something very different depending on the reader.

If you are on the left you screaming about the regressiveness of a payroll tax, of which the programs they are dedicated to are extremely progressive mind you.

If you are on the right, you are pointing out that the only reason why these people are paying more in payroll taxes than income taxes is because they often paying nothing or very little in federal income tax.

So yea, when my eFIT is 29% my annual payroll tax cost of ~70k isn't higher than my FIT bill. However when someone who pays $2k for payroll taxes is complaining because compared to their -$600 eFIT bill I am going to roll my eyes pretty damned hard.

 

[Kushinator]

You entire post seems to rely on me blaming the Democrats

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? You jumped into my exchange to claim there were mandates... that's your contribution. Good job!

I simply made the claim that the forced mandate contributed to the destruction of some businesses.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the statement you attempted (and failed) to refute.

Those businesses MIGHT still be viable today, EXCEPT for the mandate.

Maybe maybe not. We do know however that a very real economic downturn was well under way regardless of any mandates.

You seem keen on attacks of your strawmen but are lacking with the claim I actually made.

What claim did you make? That mandates reduced economic activity? Congratulations! We were already in recession by that time.

What you do not know are the second-order effects of staying open during periods of heavy viral contagion.... hence you're simply grasping at straws and attacking strawmen.

We do know that there was already a serious drop in economic activity regardless, and we do know that COVID-19 in and of itself reduced aggregate demand in a most considerable fashion.

 

[Cope]

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? You jumped into my exchange to claim there were mandates... that's your contribution. Good job!

Which is entirely irrelevant to the statement you attempted (and failed) to refute.

Maybe maybe not. We do know however that a very real economic downturn was well under way regardless of any mandates.

What we don't know, and never will, is how much less it may have been. Or how losing a year of school, has devastated the future learning of an entire generation. I guess now we pin our hopes on a school system, that has failed, to do better in catching them back up. Good Luck there.

What claim did you make? That mandates reduced economic activity? Congratulations!

Had you stopped here, we would be good, but you do not. You continue down the path of attempting to excuse and forgive because you agreed with the mandates.

We were already in recession by that time.

You can certainly point to the administration saying that? I'll wait.

What you do not know are the second-order effects of staying open during periods of heavy viral contagion.... hence you're simply grasping at straws and attacking strawmen.

No, I don't. Nor do you know what they WOULD have been.

We do know that there was already a serious drop in economic activity regardless, and we do know that COVID-19 in and of itself reduced aggregate demand in a most considerable fashion.

We know of SOME drop yes. I could certainly buy off that COVID affected some commerce. So we are agreed here but maybe differ in the hyperbolic statements that you are fond of.

 

[Ikari]

Both sides increase the debt ceiling when it suits their party. So essentially, we already have "unlimited spending".

 

[ClaraD]

just read that

liberals will swear this is a great idea - that 33 trillion in debt isn't enough, we need 50 trillion in debt

you realize this is about DEBT ALREADY INCURRED...not about new debts? It is about paying our bills on time for money your side already spent.

 

[jonny5]

Both sides increase the debt ceiling when it suits their party. So essentially, we already have "unlimited spending".

Thats debt, not spending, but clearly its not unlimited or this wouldnt be an issue. There is a law which sets the limit and requires congress and Pres to vote to raise it.

 

[Ikari]

Thats debt, not spending, but clearly its not unlimited or this wouldnt be an issue. There is a law which sets the limit and requires congress and Pres to vote to raise it.

And they always raise it.

 

[eman623]

Everyone knows that the debt ceiling will be raised. The finger pointing and posturing are just political theater.

BTW, my advice is to have a backup plan if you are planning to vacation at a national park in July. They may all be closed for a few weeks or months for no obvious reason.

 

[jonny5]

And they always raise it.

They set a new limit, which means it isnt unlimited. The debt ceiling is a valuable tool to force compromise.

 

[jonny5]

Everyone knows that the debt ceiling will be raised. The finger pointing and posturing are just political theater.

BTW, my advice is to have a backup plan if you are planning to vacation at a national park in July. They may all be closed for a few weeks or months for no obvious reason.

Political threatre but a win for citizens in this case. It will likely result in a cut in spending increases as before. Which saves us hundreds of billions in interest.