Agree 100%.

I think the debt default narrative is potentially inaccurate. I don't trust any news source to know for sure.

This is what happens when a runaway Democratic congress and President "spend" money they don't have. And now they are asking Republicans to increase the debt ceiling to pay for it. If they (D) don't now participate in the solution, then they are 100% responsible for the fallout. Trying to pin this on Republicans is disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst.

cheeky said:

---

This is what happens when a runaway Democratic congress and President "spend" money they don't have. And now they are asking Republicans to increase the debt ceiling to pay for it. If they (D) don't now participate in the solution, then they are 100% responsible for the fallout. Trying to pin this on Republicans is disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst.

---

Trump wasn't exactly a budget hawk nor was Bush (or Obama). The problem is politicians like to give people things now and pay for them later when the next guy is in charge.

The Big PONZIE scheme (AKA Social Security).
The only people who made money off of SS were those who got in on the initial (first time/one time-lump sum) payments in January 1937.

Buck fiden

Dollar is a scam. I recommend bitcoin.

cheeky said:

---

This is what happens when a runaway Democratic congress and President "spend" money they don't have. And now they are asking Republicans to increase the debt ceiling to pay for it. If they (D) don't now participate in the solution, then they are 100% responsible for the fallout. Trying to pin this on Republicans is disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst.

---

And nobody on the right has tried to stop it.

cheeky said:

---

This is what happens when a runaway Democratic congress and President "spend" money they don't have. And now they are asking Republicans to increase the debt ceiling to pay for it. If they (D) don't now participate in the solution, then they are 100% responsible for the fallout. Trying to pin this on Republicans is disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst.

---

Trump's Big Budget Deficit
President Trump continued the trend of pushing the deficit higher as he sought massive tax cuts and increased defense spending. His first budget, for the 2018 fiscal year, recorded a deficit of $779 billion.

Under Trump, the deficit reached $984 billion in 2019 and hit more than $1 trillion in 2020and that was before Congress passed a $2 trillion stimulus package to fight the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.

I can't stand FJB but to say it is only the Dems that cause deficits is absolutely false. Both parties do it, especially when they control Congress and the White House.

goatchze said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Not for the sake of chaos

But to restore principles and the dollar

---

Not a fan of the spending. It really, really needs to be reigned in.

But defaulting on the debt is unprincipled and a great way to destroy the dollar.

---

We don't default on the debt by not extending the debt ceiling. It just means we can't continue to borrow past what the limit is. It is like a maxed out credit card -- you don't default when you hit your limit. We've got plenty of tax revenue to cover interest and principal on the current debt, so there's no risk of default simply by not raising the debt ceiling.

People that don't know this frankly don't need to be commenting on this issue. I'm sorry that's harsh, but it is the truth. It is sort of like talking about switch hitting in baseball without knowing that, in general, batters fare better against pitchers of the opposite arm (righties against lefties, etc.).

12thMan9 said:

---

So, those who say no on this thread offer no solution. Y'all would make great politicians.

What is the saying about when you are in a hole......

---

How many politicians have you voted for that have always voted yes to raising the debt ceiling?

GeorgiAg said:

---

Both parties do it.

Trump, the so-called Swamp Buster, added almost $8 trillion.

Maybe we need to bring back Clinton/Gore. They're the last duo who had a budget surplus. (I didn't vote for Clinton)

j/k

---

Clinton and Gore had absolutely NOTHING to do with the surplus. The fact is that Clinton proposed budget deficits of $200+ billion (I know that's hard to imagine in todays trillions) as far as they eye could see when the Republican Congress balanced the budget. Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming toward signing those budgets and even campaigned against them. After he signed them, he took credit for them.

Only the ignorant and dishonest would award him credit. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put you in the former category because you might not have known that. But it is the absolute truth. Clinton's PROPOSED budget for FY 1997 (came out in 1996, prior to the election) called for 6 more years of deficit spending until there would be a surplus in FY 2001. Which was absurd because he knew not only he'd be out of office by then, but another budget the very next year (FY 98) would erase everything they'd done that year. It was all political theater.

Here's a link to the actual document: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/54/item/19047/content/pdf/BUDGET-1997-BUDSUPP/toc/111965?start_page=145

Matt Hooper said:

---

I'm not certain but I think if we were to actually hit the debt limit that does not mean we default on debt. I believe there is sufficient receipts to the treasury to make all debt payments.

However, if debt payment were prioritized, as it should be, we then would not have enough money left to fully fund entitlement programs or the rest of the govt. There would be significant, and immediate curtailments everywhere else. Maybe the remining obligations get funded at some fractional %.

---

This. Monthly receipts approach 400 billion/month, more than enough to service the debt. There would be no default.