The Debt Ceiling Fight Is a Reminder of America's Dire Fiscal Future
The longer we wait to address our debt, the more painful it will be.

The debt ceiling standoff has people concerned about what will happen if the U.S. defaults on its debt. I certainly hope both sides will come together to avoid this outcome. But it is still worth reminding everyone how incredibly precarious the status quo is, and why something needs to change.
You've heard the warnings about our debt levels, to the point where they might be easy to tune out. I make these all the time. When assessing how much we should worry, it's wise to look both at our current situation and where we're heading. This year, our budget deficit will likely be $1.4 trillion. What's more, the deficit will reach about $2.8 trillion in 2033. And that's assuming peace, prosperity, relatively low interest rates, no new spending, and that some provisions of the 2017 tax cuts will expire as scheduled.
That's $20 trillion in new borrowing over 10 years. So far, Uncle Sam has "only" accumulated $31 trillion in debt over the course of our entire history. But it gets worse fast. Congressional Budget Office projections show that the federal government will accumulate about $114 trillion in deficits over the next 30 years, which would place our debt at nearly 200 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Most of this predicted shortfall is due to Social Security and Medicare. Together these programs will consume 11.5 percent of GDP by 2035.
This is a lot of borrowing. In theory, it might not lead to a debt crisis if the government can find people to buy the debt at low rates or Congress develops a serious plan to repay it. Yet even assuming the best case scenario, borrowing like this has a cost. Debt is a drag on economic growth, which means less tax revenue to pay it off.
A large debt also means higher interest payments. We already spend more on interest payments than on Medicaid, and 17.4 percent of our revenue goes toward interest payments. These payments will balloon to $1.5 trillion, or 22 percent of federal revenue, by 2033. Within 30 years, interest payments will consume half of all tax revenues. By then a lot of the spending that people like will be crowded out.
Even these estimates are rosy. They don't take into consideration the inflation that could result from all this debt accumulation. Most of our debt has a maturity of less than four years. As Congress gives up on controlling debt, once-confident investors might worry that the Fed will stabilize the debt with inflation. History provides some examples, and today's debt-to-GDP has fallen since the pandemic in part due to inflation. Investors, sooner rather than later, could demand higher interest rates as an inflation premium.
Research confirms the impact of debt on long-term interest rates. Every percentage point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with an increase of three basis points (0.03 percent) of the long-term real interest rate. So, if the debt ratio rises by 100 percent over the next 30 years, it will put upward pressure on interest rates of about three percentage points.
Because of the dollar's unique role in the global economy, the United States may have more legroom than other countries. Still, it's wise to worry that if the debt-to-GDP ratio rises from 94 percent to roughly 200 percent in three decades, we could face some serious interest rate hikes.
If interest rates rise by just one percentage point, that will add $3 trillion in interest payments over 10 years, on top of the $10 trillion we're already scheduled to pay. That's an additional $30 trillion over 30 years. Add a few more interest rate hikes and soon all your tax revenue is consumed by interest payments, not to mention the negative impact these rate hikes can have on the larger American economy.
A better question is this: Is it credible to bet on investors agreeing to buy $114 trillion in debt over the next 30 years? China and Japan have already reduced their holdings of American bonds, while the Fed already holds 25 percent of our debt. It's unclear that domestic investors will step up to the plate. What happens then? Taxes can only be raised so much. Under the current tax system, on average, the United States has raised about 18 percent of GDP in tax revenue. But in 30 years, spending will be 30 percent of GDP.
My hope is that if you've read this far, you now understand that Congress should start working diligently to stop our debt from growing. No side is going to like what's required, but it must be done. And the longer we wait, the more painful it will be.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Great civilizations fall for a lot of reasons. Going into massive debt and devaluing the currency is just one of them.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Online, Google paid $45 per hour. Nine months have passed since my close relative last had a job, but in the previous month she earned $10500 by working 8 hours a day from home. Now is the time for everyone to try this job by using this website…
Click the link—↠ http://Www.Smartjob1.com
Consistently begin winning more than $13,000 by doing exceptionallystraightforward Online occupation from home.i m carrying out thisresponsibility in my low maintenance I have earned and gotten $13485 a monthago. I am presently a decent Online worker and gains enough money for myrequirements. Each individual can land this Online position by followsubtleties on this site.......... https://Www.Coins71.Com
It's not the debt itself that is creating the problem. It's what we are choosing to spend money on in incurring that debt. Virtually nothing that is productive at this point. Not spending on retirees. Not obligations of empire. Not infrastructure based on 70 year old ideas. Not the pig trough of corruption and cronyism.
Once all that spending is long forgotten, our descendants will still be paying the entire bill. And there's not a single serious attempt to even take the first step at dealing with it. Not even a political party that can create a Chat GPT prompt to do low hanging fruit re say Medicare spending reforms.
For example:
Please identify three Medicare spending reforms that have lower political pushback from beneficiaries
Example One:
Payment reform for high-cost drugs: Medicare spends a significant amount on prescription drugs, particularly for high-cost specialty drugs. One potential reform that may have less pushback is changing the way these drugs are paid for. Currently, Medicare pays for these drugs under Part B. One potential reform would be to move these drugs to Part D, where private insurance plans negotiate prices with drug manufacturers.
Care coordination for beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions: Beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions are a significant driver of Medicare spending. One potential reform that may be less politically contentious is improving care coordination for these individuals. This could involve investing in care management programs, expanding the use of telehealth, or incentivizing providers to work together to coordinate care.
Value-based payment models - These models tie payment to the quality and outcomes of care rather than simply paying for services rendered. This could encourage providers to focus on delivering high-quality care while potentially reducing unnecessary spending.
Good thing not one thing can ever be discussed in Congress or any political party - DeRp or third.
Congratulations! You just reduced the Medicare cost by maybe one percent with one of those three things. The other two, while they might be desirable, will not reduce costs. The only way to lower Medicare costs is to make private medical payments to providers illegal, which would also further reduce access to medical care, reduce the quality of care in many other ways, and increase the death and morbidity rates by delaying access. The best way, of course, is to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and let the market take care of costs, access, quality and innovation. But of course your Fearless Leaders will not choose that option. Enjoy!
Your option has reduced Medicare spending by zero dollars and will continue to so forever. I’ve got a whole bunch of – unlimited number really – reforms that achieve nothing at all except signal to someone that the utterer is responsible and everyone else is a shit head. Would you like to hear some of those?
And care coordination for multiple chronic condition elderly – ie all of them over age 70 or so – is one of the many things that geriatricians do in other countries serving as, basically, a GP. Along with preventive care, medication management, end-of-life and bucket list / family issues. We don’t do geriatricians here - the elderly often can't even find a GP so have to rely on specialists with a conflict of interest -and did nothing to anticipate the demand for that from boomers. Which is a big reason we can’t control jackshit and why people like you don’t even understand how other countries control medical spending and we don’t. The third proposal alone saves 20-50% of spending even on non-chronic younger patients – which is why that is what all larger employers who self-insure do
We notably spend much/most/too much in people's last year of life.
We could decide not to spend anything on health care in your last year of life. How would we know? By cutting your health care to zero it probably will be your last year.
A geriatrician is the sort of doctor who can talk with a patient about end of life stuff - but only if they have been their doctor for a while and have earned trust. Family can't. Specialists can but don't and never will. Bureaucrats - whether govt or corporate can't. The 'market' has a long history of seeing end-of-life care as the last opportunity to take everything they can because the patient can't take it with them.
You are simply pretending that something good will happen. It won't. Most 'libertarian' commenters here are really just hate-filled cynical nihilists and no one should ever trust them for anything in the real world.
End of life care is a huge part of Medicare spending. And any discussion about it is pretty much the main indicator of whether someone is human.
My father is about to turn 90. I talk with him about end of life issues with some frequency. Especially since he had a stroke last year. So I don’t know where you come up with the idea that family can’t do that.
Logan’s Run proposed a solution to that. Renew!
I utterly reject your assertions and the premises they are based upon (not that you care) not the least of which is that other nations control medical costs through government universal health care systems. We could achieve 100% medicare cost reductions by eliminating medicare entirely, but I'm sure that concept went straight over your head. Every nation on earth that has tried to reduce the cost of medical care has done so by reducing access and cutting quality. The ones, like the UK, who refuse to loosen government control of their system are watching medical care circle the drain as we speak. The others have allowed private access for a fee and partially rescued the health of their population.
Every nation on earth that has tried to reduce the cost of medical care has done so by reducing access and cutting quality.
Shit, in Canada's case, they've gone straight to jawboning their citizens into allowing their doctors to commit homicide.
Value based pay? So, if I'm a doctor and only get paid if the outcome is good, I am definitely not going to treat most cancer, diabetes, hypertension or heart disease. I also will probably elect not to treat anyone with mental health issues. If you're obese, sorry. High risk pregnancy? To bad. Yeah that will definitely reduce costs as no one except healthy people will receive care then. I've been in medicine for nearly 30 years, and I've worked at facilities that have tried to implement programs similar to this, it never actually improved care. Instead, it resulted in practitioners becoming risk averse and turning away risky patients or patients with hard to treat conditions or conditions with low probability of success. So, yes outcomes improved but only because practitioners stop treating the really sick and focused on the more healthy.
Every large employer – and every other country on Earth for their social medical – uses a form of value based spending in setting up their in-network and out-of-network systems. They determine -or try - which providers deliver better outcomes and channel patients to them – and negotiate volume discounts.
We don’t. We pretend that Dr Google – and dozens of appointments for second opinions – will deliver -well nothing because the whole system here is pay for every transaction
But hey – keep pushing NOTHING as some perfect alternative that exists nowhere on Earth
No, not every country uses, not even every country with socialized healthcare. Additionally, pointing that out as a good thing means you are unaware of the fact that compared to most countries with socialized healthcare, in the US you are more likely to get treated earlier and more aggressively for cancer, heart disease, diabetes etc, and that the outcomes for patients with these diseases is better in the US because we do treat them early and aggressively because we don't base medicine on outcomes. For fuck sake, England that does use this system has a government board that literally decides if you life is worth saving. Don't want to mess up those outcome based ratings. Fuck, you just proved my point for me.
So, comparing a pediatric heart surgeon to a stock trader getting performance based pay is equivalent how in your mind? A stock trader looks at the risk of a stock compared to the potential reward and makes a decision. The pediatric cardiac surgeon should use the same criteria in your mind? If you have stage IV cancer, do you want your oncologist worrying about if he'll get paid if he starts care on you and you still (as you likely will with most stage IV cancers) die? Or that neurosurgeon doing trauma surgery worried that he won't get paid if you never walk again?
We already do patient satisfaction surveys as part of our yearly evaluation and on our standards of practice. You know what they generally show? Doctors who order more tests and second opinions actually get higher scores because people think they're doing more, despite often arriving at the same diagnosis and treatment of the doctors that order less. Additionally, the doctors who care the most about them also tend to accept the least sick patients. We already use a modified outcome based system, and it's actually made medicine worse, not better.
I would suggest you query Chat GPT via prompts and drill downs. What are their sources of info? How should any such approach be implemented? What savings can be expected? What pitfalls?
I’m glad you’re interested in this issue. And I’m sure that you will learn more by querying Chat GPT's learned knowledge patterns than by arguing with me. As will I.
My point here was to see whether we can ADD value to a public discussion by using AI. Not to pretend a tool like that out of existence simply because we prefer the usual shit and venom of politics.
Have held a nursing license since 22 March 1997. I don't need to query ChatGPT since I have actual decades of experience in the field, as well as have read numerous peer reviewed literature on it.
Maybe things would be cheaper if we weren’t bringing in illegals by the million and giving them instant freebies, compliments of taxpayers.
There is an absolutely foolproof way to solve all of these problems. Compel Congress to balance the budget, thus forcing them to make the tough choices they are supposed to be making.
The debt itself is creating huge problems.
Correct. Always has, always will.
“It’s not the debt itself that is creating the problem.”
False. The debt itself is a problem. That it was simply squandered is a separate problem
While taking risks and visiting far-flung locations, I make $100 each hour. Last week, I travelled to Rome, Monte Carlo, and ultimately Paris while working remotely. This week, I’m back in the USA. I just use this one ed48 fantastic website for easy tasks. see it, . . Click here —————————— http://newsalary510.blogspot.com
Apparently Trump absolutely crushed his appearance on CNN tonight.
And poor Reason can't join their fellows in the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments because their assigned role is to appear "neutral"
He made the host look like a complete idiot.
If it was a CNN host that's not exactly a high bar to meet... 😉
If it was a CNN host, they are almost certainly a complete idiot.
I would guess that most of the "serious" media wrote their reports before the Trump segment aired.
However, he fucked up royally going on CNN.
Why give them the time of day? Nobody watches them as is.
Kind of like Fox these days.
From the reporting on this thing, you'd think the entire country was glued to its TV set watching it. I doubt that level of hysteria is uncalculated; these people desperately want him to run again for a multitude of reasons.
Had he gotten controlled by the host I would agree. Instead he got free air time to be Trump.
Giving CNN ratings was a small price to pay.
So you're saying it was a "win-win" ? Trump got free air time and CNN got an audience for the first (and last time) in months!
They were thrashed so badly they simply ended it. Apparently use of the “mercy rule” to protect the HOST (rather than the interviewee) is unprecedented.
I didn’t see the interview, but read the transcript. Trump was hilarious. But not persuasive. He simply repeated his positions, even the most ridiculous ones.
He’s be a better Prez than SloJo, but that’s damning with the faintest praise.
DeSantis is better. He has the substance Trump lacks, but needs to work on his style.
Nice article, Veronique! Preach it.
Borrowing more to pay off your debts is a sign that you've got a serious overspending problem. Spending has gone up by 50% in just the past 5 years. Cutting spending back to 2018 levels would balance the budget right now, with now new taxes.
Or as Ross Perot used to say, "when you find yourself in a deep hole, stop digging."
The debt ceiling -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
"The debt ceiling"
Is a misnomer. It's not a limit on the treasury's authority to borrow money. In accordance with Article 1 Section 8 Clause 2, Only Congress has the power to borrow money against the credit of the United States.
The so called "debt ceiling" was first passed in 1917. Prior to that Congress had to individually authorize every bond issue by the treasury.
The "debt ceiling" is an authorization for the treasury to borrow up to $X.
Without the "debt ceiling" the treasury can't borrow $0.01
And no, 14A's debt clause does not supersede Article 1 Section 8 Clause 2. The debt clause in 14A explicitly applies to debt "authorized by law".
Nothing in 14A would prevent the government from later declaring any debt undertaken by the treasury without Congressional authorization to be void.
Splitting legal hairs on Nero's lyre while Rome is burning - entertaining and intellectually stimulating but ultimately fruitless. The only time politicians pay attention to a particular law or Constitutional clause is when they think it might help them with the optics.
There's not that much to worry about with increasing interest costs because those who have money demand a higher interest rate on future loans to compensate for inflation.
Demand?? Who is going to demand? Eff'em. They have money. If they won't lend it to us, we'll just take it, and tell'em it's for equity. Our government will take care of us.
Do I need an [/s] to keep readers from thinking I advocate that as a solution? Do you think the government won't look for ways to take what it wants that holders will not willingly part from? You haven't paid taxes on your 401 or 403 money, and I've got news for you - it aint yours yet!! One simple legislative act, passed by a Congress with the right majority in both houses, and signed by the President, and few little rules could be attached to what you think is your money, but isn't. There's pretty much no limit to the requirements those rules could impose.
And in no circumstances should the USA default on its debts. Tax revenues are running at 4 trillion dollars per year, far more than enough to service even the astronomical debt we have now (I know, give Congress time, and it won't be...) 32 trillion at 5% is 1.6 trillion per year, more than enough reason to stop borrowing more.
Just pay the interest on the debt first, as the 14th Amendment requires. It's not a blank check to start minting trillion dollar coins. Stop spending by laying off the non-essential government workers. Apparently there are a lot of them. Shut down non-essential government programs, or delay the payouts. Stop sending billions of aid to other countries when this country is already broke.
Stop spending by laying off the non-essential government workers.
Haha! Start with Congress. They don’t have the backbone to develop a budget, just continuing resolutions. At least 80% of government workers are unnecessary.
I think you are kidding yourself that 80% of government worker are not necessary. That not to say that there could not be some slimming down just not to the number you suggested and which I assume you pulled out of the air.
There are entire unconstitutional federal agencies (Education, Energy, EPA, etc.) that could be shut down. I don’t know if 80% is the right number, but we could much more than ‘slim down’ federal head count.
You are in the right neighborhood - see my adjacent response.
Ok, 90%+ of all Federal employees are unnecessary.
Abolish every agency, and department within agencies, which is not essential to the continuation of this nation. That should eradicate 70% right there.
Return to the States anything which is not truly a national issue.
Of what remains, outsource anything which can legally be outsourced - forcing Congresss to decide anew each year if they require continued funding.
Of what remains which cannot legally be outsourced, like line of fire law enforcement, convert it to a Federated model. All employees would be State employees delegated for a strictly term limited period. No DC offices. No DC appointed “leaders.” No power to create regulations - only the privilege of providing advice to Congress for proposed legislation. No “Federal careers.”
We would have the budget balanced in no time.
It would be fun to list all the government entities and their functions, and then have the American people rate them as essential, nice to have, and unnecessary. And then fund them accordingly.
Why bother? See my long reply above - we can eliminate the swamp monster with just a few simple adjustments.
My first act as president would be to drastically cut all non regulatory enforcement administration from all departments. Then I would propose consolidation of federal agencies. Why do we need so many different, independently financed federal police agencies. You need to enforce a federal law, and say you're in the IRS, get a subpoena and have the federal Marshals enforce it. Why do we need so many different intelligence agencies? Why do we need the BLM, USFS, USFWS, and NPS? Combine them into one office, as separate departments. Thus you could eliminate almost all leadership of those four services, and likely improve efficiency at the same time. I wouldn't end the Dept of Ed, largely because it isn't feasible politically, but I would gut it and give all federal funding to each student for their families to decide where it gets spent (thus would actually increase the amount of spending per student, while also saving taxpayers money). Student loans, if I can't stop them, I would work to get rules passed to slow their growth and not make schools with high administrative costs eligible for federal student loans. If your school has as many (or more) administration than professors, sorry, you don't get to suck at the government teat anymore. Medicaid and Medicare. Sure, since we can't seem to get rid of them, let's give the money directly to recipients, with strings attached, to spend on their own private insurance, and any money left over will be deposited in a HSA for them. You say most of this would take congressional actions. Yes. That's what veto pens are for. Send me a budget without meaningful reforms as listed. Vetoed. Send me an omnibus spending bill. Vetoed. Send me a CR. Vetoed. What about getting reelected? Fuck it, I didn't want the job in the first place. Send me a bill that has any unrelated spending. Vetoed.
The military doesn't want to straighten out it's procurement and waste problems. Guess who is the commander in chief. I would make every single one of those JC stand at attention in front of my desk, and remind them what the chain of command is. They don't like it, to fucking bad. They disobey me, I will bring UCMJ down on their heads faster than a private who gets a DUI. Disobeying a direct, lawful order is a prosecutable offense under the UCMJ, and I don't care how many stars on your shoulder, I can and will push to have them brought up on charges, and if convicted, see them busted to E-1, dishonorably discharged with full loss of benefits. If they retire to avoid it, guess what the President has the power to recall generals to active duty. I will remind those desk jockeys at the Pentagon that they are subject to civilian control and exactly what the fucking chain of command is. No playing nice. No allowing them to resign with pride. Let a few heads roll, and all those career pencil pushers will remember who is really in charge. You say that sounds vindictive. So fucking what. There is a reason that our military is under direct civilian control of an elected president. I will entertain differing opinions, but once a command is issued, do what every other service member is expected to do, follow your orders and keep your bitching to yourself. Just because you have stars on your shoulders it doesn't change the fact that you are expected to conduct yourself as a professional, follow lawful orders, follow the chain of command, and air your disagreements in private. Generals should get no more leeway than a buck private would if they break chain of command and disobey an order.
Don't want to cut federal administration? Guess what, the President is in charge of executive branch hiring, I just won't fill any administrative position. If it works that proves they weren't needed. If it doesn't, then obviously they were a necessary position and it should be continued.
“drastically cut all administration from all departments.” There! I fixed it for you and eliminated almost all of your incorrect three paragraphs. There are about four “departments” that are actually authorized or necessary under the Constitution – State, Defense, Treasury and Interior. Consolidating authorized and necessary functions (if any) from other “departments” as they are eliminated is another keeper. All those other departments are unconstitutional, do more harm than good even according to their own mythology, and should spend no money or regulate any private activities.
I agree but what I am proposing is what is politically possible as opposed to being perfect. It's called being pragmatic enough to actually achieve at least part of your goals.
Everything you said, plus…
Abolish every agency, and department within agencies, which is not essential to the continuation of this nation. That should eradicate 70% right there.
Return to the States anything which is not truly a national issue.
Of what remains, outsource anything which can legally be outsourced – forcing Congresss to decide anew each year if they require continued funding.
Of what remains which cannot legally be outsourced, like line of fire law enforcement, convert it to a Federated model. All employees would be State employees delegated for a strictly term limited period. No DC offices. No DC appointed “leaders.” No power to create regulations – only the privilege of providing advice to Congress for proposed legislation. No “Federal careers.”
We would have the budget balanced in no time.
One comment on your post about enforcement agencies. Last trip to Washington I walked by the FBI building and noted officers with uniforms identifying them as FBI police. I asked and the person did inform me that the FBI has its own police force, which really seems redundant.
General Flynn was going to eliminate a lot of waste and redundancy in intelligence. Look what they did to him.
Yeah. It would take a Hercules to kill the hydra.
Some good ideas there. I have a simpler solution.
Abolish every agency, and department within agencies, which is not essential to the continuation of this nation. That should eradicate 70% right there.
Return to the States anything which is not truly a national issue.
Of what remains, outsource anything which can legally be outsourced – forcing Congresss to decide anew each year if they require continued funding.
Of what remains which cannot legally be outsourced, like line of fire law enforcement, convert it to a Federated model. All employees would be State employees delegated for a strictly term limited period. No DC offices. No DC appointed “leaders.” No power to create regulations – only the privilege of providing advice to Congress for proposed legislation. No “Federal careers.”
We would have the budget balanced in no time.
In response to Kevin McCarthy's overtures, Biden has demanded that we raise the debt ceiling and then proposed an additional $1.2T in funding to repaint it.
" if the government can find people to buy the debt at low rates or Congress develops a serious plan to repay it. "
That is a joke.
The so-called debt has been paid via newly printed money !!
If it were just a 'debt", the value of our money would not have declined !
It's not clear to me why anyone "hopes" that Congress will stave off the disaster just a little longer. Of course, Congress COULD solve the problem tomorrow by cutting spending on everything but defense and social security; but they won't. They wouldn't even have to raise the debt ceiling if they were fiscally responsible; but they aren't and they will. There is nothing difficult about any of this! The plain fact is that The People (TM) want mutually exclusive things from government and politicians will do whatever it takes to stay in office. Let it crash while there's still something left to build back upon.
+1
How can you argue we need to cut spending? Spending has already been cut to the bone, there's nothing left to cut! And yet there are still new challengers trying to get elected, what are they supposed to promise the voters if not new spending on new programs? The budget absolutely must increase year over year and by a greater amount each year.
Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
- Mencken
Nice
+1,000,000
$4.5 trillion is “cut to the bone” in your view?
You must be an asylum escapee.
Abolish every agency, and department within agencies, which is not essential to the continuation of this nation. That should eradicate 70% right there.
Return to the States anything which is not truly a national issue.
Of what remains, outsource anything which can legally be outsourced – forcing Congresss to decide anew each year if they require continued funding.
Of what remains which cannot legally be outsourced, like line of fire law enforcement, convert it to a Federated model. All employees would be State employees delegated for a strictly term limited period. No DC offices. No DC appointed “leaders.” No power to create regulations – only the privilege of providing advice to Congress for proposed legislation. No “Federal careers.”
We would have the budget balanced in no time.
Don’t be so serious, Johnny. Jerry’s just kidding.
CBDC's can't save the nation from the inflationary heebie-geebies
Welcome to the USSA. The [Na]tional So[zi]alist nation the Democrat Party has created and conquered the USA with. Watch as it comes crumbling down as every socialist nation before it did. Reference Venezuela. The leftards utopian model nation not even 30-years ago.
How many times does history have to repeat itself before criminal minds learn their massive "armed-theft" is UN-sustainable? It's not that hard. Repeat after me, "Gov-Guns DO NOT MAKE sh*t!".
"This time for SURE! Presto! - Bullwinkle Moose, Frostbite Falls
“Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”
You know what is a reminder of America's dire fiscal future?
The fact that DEMOCRATS are refusing to agree to even keeping spending at 2022 levels plus a little annual growth.
The debt ceiling FIGHT is a reminder that not everybody in Congress has gone batshit insane.
And by batshit insane we mean woke-socialist-nanny-green-gender fluid-snowflake-nouveau racist-suicidal-apocalyptic-perpetual childhood-cultural Marxist.
It’s not even a FIGHT. A fight takes at least two opposing sides. When the GOP had complete control of both houses of Congress and a Republican in the White House, they did not lower the debt ceiling or end deficit spending. They only pay lip-service when it suits them to pretend to look like they’re the fiscally responsible party and that the Democrats are spending money we don’t have like drunken sailors. This is a mock battle over who gets to control the wild deficit spending spree.
In the land where scale is of no importance…..
$1 – $100…. Awe. What’s the difference? /s
Yeah, they may be posers but I still hope they get their way. Gotta start somewhere, and the progs will scream at the sky.
"The Debt Ceiling Fight Is a Reminder of America's Dire Fiscal Future"
No, the fight is a reminder of our dire ethical and intellectual future, especially if we can survive as a single nation with even a minimal commitment to original fundamental principles.
Using default as leverage is more insane than anything De Rugy wrote above. Default would bring all of De Rugy’s dire predictions about 30 years from now, into the present, or at least much sooner.
That should be the opposite of what those wanting to reduce the debt/deficit should want. But that is not what they want. What they want is power. As soon as they have power, they will (again) enact upper bracket and corporate tax cuts that are debt financed. That is as sure as any of the predictions that De Rugy is gassing out here. In fact, to the extent that they want spending reduced now (while the opposing party holds the white house), it is so they can use those savings for tax cuts once their party holds the white house. And then, again, they won’t care about the debt/deficit. All of this is as sure as the sun coming out tomorrow.
Using default as leverage is more insane than anything De Rugy wrote above. Default would bring all of De Rugy’s dire predictions about 30 years from now, into the present, or at least much sooner.
The government only defaults if it can't cover the note on its existing debt. All that not raising the debt ceiling means is that it can't spend more than it takes in. That's not what causes default, although the media is certainly happy to advance that narrative because they know most Americans are too civically disconnected to realize that.
Going back to 2022 levels of spending shouldn't be a big ask, but the administration is more than happy to play these games because they won't get their dumb "clean energy" bullshit subsidies otherwise.
If the government can’t currently cover the note on existing debt without more immediate debt financing, then default is the result. Are you suggesting that no more debt financing is required to cover existing debt payments, even at 2022 spending levels? Because debt increased during all of 2022.
Shedding energy subsidies, or even the 2017 debt financed tax cuts, would not be enough of a reduction to cover existing debt without incurring new debt. Or else the proposal to cut the energy subsidies wouldn’t also include an increase in the debt ceiling as well. The idea that no more debt financing is required, that everything would be fine operating with only current tax receipts, is the most civically disconnected idea of all.
I don't know how much you think "the note' is, but the feds are making more than enough money to continue paying it off for a long time, even without further borrowing.
Total federal revenue this fiscal yesr is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.7 trillion, and even at our current higher (relative to the last 15 years or so) interest rates, interest on the debt this fiscal year will still be under 1 trillion.
4.7 trillion is a lot more than underc1 trillion, according to my understanding of numbers and math.
Doug, you seem to be – willfully – misunderstanding the terminology you so glibly put out there. The Federal government would have to cut annual spending well below anticipated annual revenues in order to avoid default and raising the debt ceiling. If they cut spending enough below revenues, they can pay the interest on the current debt without raising the debt ceiling. Holding the debt ceiling “hostage” to decreased spending is not just a game – it’s essential to fiscal responsibility regardless of why the GOP may be using that tactic currently. I would prefer that the House pass a new budget with serious cuts across the board and, if the Democrats refuse to pass it in the Senate, sit back and late nature take its course. They will probably cave instead, just as they have always done before, and raise the debt ceiling with only fig-leaf spending hocus-pocus.
If the government can’t currently cover the note on existing debt without more immediate debt financing, then default is the result.
How much do you actually think that is, dummy?
There is currently about $6 trillion of outstanding T bills. That means rolled over within the next year and they've been fiddling with that for a few months now. Rolled over means auction additional debt to use the proceeds to pay expiring
“…. debt financed tax cuts…..”
Lol. You suck, Doug.
Elections have consequences, Doug. And everything is so terrible and unfair. (Tm)
It should be unconstitutional to have any debt at all, save perhaps short term for some immense undertaking - and even that is questionable as to the legitimacy. Long term debt is always taxation without representation for anyone unable to vote when the debt is incurred. It is simply generational theft.
If anyone cared to obey the Constitution instead of propping up [Na]tional So[zi]alism there is no way there would be a national debt with the massive amount of taxing ("armed-theft") going on.
Point being; All these problems are directly a result of ignoring the Constitution in the first place.
Correct. Even the election theft of 2020 goes right back to the Constitution. “There’s no proof of fraud!,” they shriek, knowing that the election laws intentionally violated insure there is no evidence whatsoever – including no evidence that the election was legitimate, which was the purpose of those laws.
The argument is a lie from the get go. The burden of proof lies with the States, and the Federal government has a Constitutional obligation to toss ANY result for which ironclad proof is not delivered to Congress. Article IV, Section 4 provides a GUARANTEE (the only place in the Constitution where that word is used, and it was not accidental) of “a Republican form of government. That means no cheating. That guarantee can never be met unless the States produce incontrovertible proof the election was legitimate, else the entire government is illegitimate (the contractual guarantee of the Constitution is not delivered, therefore the contract is null and void until and unless it is rectified).
The sole source of legitimacy for our government hinges on this clause. Why aren’t the Republicans screaming for this? They would immediately flip a dozen States red if those States were compelled to meet the DEFINED STANDARD.
Why does the government even pretend any more that there is a debt ceiling?
Are you really this naive? Are you really this ignorant of political science?
Debt Ceiling Theater is little more than reaffirmation that Congress is hopelessly broken.
Maybe this will change the make-up of the new Congress that will be elected in 2024 just a little.
It is interesting to ponder what is going on in the minds of the Freedom Caucus, as they repeatedly re-set the count-down clock on dumping McCarthy.
I quit working at shop and now I make 65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new after 4 years it was so hard. Here’s what I do.... http://www.topearn7.com
Starting in 2019, and growing worse every year hearafter until/unless corrected by Congress or global fiscal collapse renders it all moot, the sum of all Entitlements (payments which must be made by law with or without a budget) now exceed total Federal revenues. Everything Congress votes for is automatically debt.
Every Entitlement was sponsored by Democrats. Almost none even had a single Republican co-sponsor.
America is now solidly on a suicide course to the biggest fiscal collapse in human history - and it is 100% due to Democrats.
Vote wisely. It's still not too late to fix it before it all collapses.
We are America. We are immune to the laws of economics.
Another is funding never-ending wars in far-flung regions. Adding to this is a lazy populace and a large welfare state. So far, the US is batting 1.000 in doing things that bring down great civilizations.
Progressives: "Rules and economics are racist!"
It was an epic fail on her end. The guy is unstoppable.
We can expect the democrats to pass that into law in order to make solar power reliable. Clouds will likewise be outlawed.
(no less likely than passing laws saying men are women)
I never watch CNN, so I have a question. Did he grab her by any feminine body part?
Let’s keep rules and economics, and get rid of the progressives.
She wishes!
No, but we all know he would have let her.
Lucy . you think George `s storry is impossible, on sunday I got a brand new Saab 99 Turbo after having made $8551 this past four weeks and just over ten-k last month . it's by-far the most comfortable job I have ever had . I started this five months/ago and almost straight away began to bring home over $95... per-hour..
🙂
AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com