Shouldn't the "debt ceiling" really be called a "debt HOLE?"

[Neomalthusian]

I have no link to a story or someone else's opinion. I'm just interested in people's opinions about the subtle, psychological aspects of giving the debt a "ceiling" rather than a "floor."

When we look at charts of investment performance, GDP, and most other graphics relating to money, higher is better. Climbing a mountain is associated with victory. The taller the building, the greater the achievement. Tall guys get more chicks than short guys. Bigger is better. Up and up and up. Raise the roof! And so on and so forth.

Debt is really nothing like any of this. We say we're "drowning" in debt. "Buried" in debt. "Up to our eyeballs" in debt. We're in the hole. In the red. We need to "dig" ourselves out of debt. "Climb" our way out of debt.

Being in debt is very much like being in a hole. And while I realize the "debt ceiling" debate is dormant for now, I think that when Congress bumps up against the "ceiling" in a year or two, we should consider reframing the discussion as a debt hole. Advocates of more debt can assert the following: "Congress should dig the debt hole deeper."

Yes?

 

[1Perry]

Indeed, good point. "How much deeper are we going to dig the hole" is how it should be framed.

 

[Jagermeistered]

Well...

We could call it a debt-hole: the growth of public expenditures(with no real source of capital income) - from taxpayers(to fund ancieme social programs: social security, Medicare, Medicaid). Or/and, a debt-bubble! The debt-bubble is were all the juicy side-stories derive from. This is what makes our society; hysterical! From exposed, anti-productive subsidies... Too many to name: cash for clunkers, green-capital movement, etc...

 

[Missed AB]

But then government spending would be considered a negative thing...

 

[Jagermeistered]

But then government spending would be considered a negative thing...

What does government, have to spend? That doesn't create negative equity?

 

[samsmart]

I have no link to a story or someone else's opinion. I'm just interested in people's opinions about the subtle, psychological aspects of giving the debt a "ceiling" rather than a "floor."

When we look at charts of investment performance, GDP, and most other graphics relating to money, higher is better. Climbing a mountain is associated with victory. The taller the building, the greater the achievement. Tall guys get more chicks than short guys. Bigger is better. Up and up and up. Raise the roof! And so on and so forth.

Debt is really nothing like any of this. We say we're "drowning" in debt. "Buried" in debt. "Up to our eyeballs" in debt. We're in the hole. In the red. We need to "dig" ourselves out of debt. "Climb" our way out of debt.

Being in debt is very much like being in a hole. And while I realize the "debt ceiling" debate is dormant for now, I think that when Congress bumps up against the "ceiling" in a year or two, we should consider reframing the discussion as a debt hole. Advocates of more debt can assert the following: "Congress should dig the debt hole deeper."

Yes?

You can slap it on the ass and call it Sally, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress are still going to do it either way.

 

[Sig]

I have no link to a story or someone else's opinion. I'm just interested in people's opinions about the subtle, psychological aspects of giving the debt a "ceiling" rather than a "floor."

When we look at charts of investment performance, GDP, and most other graphics relating to money, higher is better. Climbing a mountain is associated with victory. The taller the building, the greater the achievement. Tall guys get more chicks than short guys. Bigger is better. Up and up and up. Raise the roof! And so on and so forth.

Debt is really nothing like any of this. We say we're "drowning" in debt. "Buried" in debt. "Up to our eyeballs" in debt. We're in the hole. In the red. We need to "dig" ourselves out of debt. "Climb" our way out of debt.

Being in debt is very much like being in a hole. And while I realize the "debt ceiling" debate is dormant for now, I think that when Congress bumps up against the "ceiling" in a year or two, we should consider reframing the discussion as a debt hole. Advocates of more debt can assert the following: "Congress should dig the debt hole deeper."

Yes?

I like to look at the national debt as sort of a BLACK HOLE wherein the U.S., as capo di tutti capi, draws in as much capital from the global economy as it needs, turning debt into the ultimate economic advantage: the more we owe, the more irresistable our economic pull becomes.

Perhaps, it's really all a matter of perception.​