40 ms·

And it's equally incorrect to claim that the debt ceiling does not, in any way, have an impact on existing debt, as was claimed by the person I was responding t

And it's equally incorrect to claim that the debt ceiling does not, in any way, have an impact on existing debt, as was claimed by the person I was responding to. Moreover, the executive's ability to independently trim spending absolutely has limits, and I've seen no credible claims that the executive can service debt costs "indefinitely": https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-everything-you-should-know-about-debt-ceiling#what%20happens https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-everything-you-should-know-ab... > So-called “prioritization” of payments, or making sure certain obligations among the more than 80 million that get paid per month are paid before others – such as servicing debts to bondholders before making other payments in order to avoid technical default – has been criticized as unrealistic by Treasury officials and economists.

pseudo0 3y ago
The government takes in close to $5 trillion a year [0], debt servicing is $496.5 billion [1]. So it's easily able to be covered by existing revenues. With respect to prioritization, I'm sure Treasury officials don't want to be put in that position, but if we end up hitting the debt ceiling they will need to make it work. [0] - https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/statements-of-operations-changes.html#table1 https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-rep... [1] - https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/statement-of-net-cost.html#table1 https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-rep...
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  I'd suggest reading through this: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/prioritization/ https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/prioritization/ Of note is this: > First, under any hypothetical prioritization scenario, the federal government would be failing to meet some of its obligations. There is no legal precedent for choosing to pay certain bills before others. Immediate court battles would likely arise over the legality of paying, for example, foreign bondholders over American citizens. What would be the logical interpretation of a court ruling in favor of a legal claimant? A default on the full faith and credit of the United States? Given that the constitution talks about "debts" without being specific about what that means, I think it's also debatable whether or not the 14th amendment applies to other types of spending obligations beyond just interest owed to bondholders.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    “Debt” isn’t an ambiguous term that requires creative interpretation. The Magna Carta from 1215 has several provisions addressing “debt,” “interest,” “sureties,” etc.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

pseudo0 3y ago

The government takes in close to $5 trillion a year [0], debt servicing is $496.5 billion [1]. So it's easily able to be covered by existing revenues. With respect to prioritization, I'm sure Treasury officials don't want to be put in that position, but if we end up hitting the debt ceiling they will need to make it work. [0] - https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/statements-of-operations-changes.html#table1 https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-rep... [1] - https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/statement-of-net-cost.html#table1 https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-rep...

BaseballPhysics 3y ago
I'd suggest reading through this: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/prioritization/ https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/prioritization/ Of note is this: > First, under any hypothetical prioritization scenario, the federal government would be failing to meet some of its obligations. There is no legal precedent for choosing to pay certain bills before others. Immediate court battles would likely arise over the legality of paying, for example, foreign bondholders over American citizens. What would be the logical interpretation of a court ruling in favor of a legal claimant? A default on the full faith and credit of the United States? Given that the constitution talks about "debts" without being specific about what that means, I think it's also debatable whether or not the 14th amendment applies to other types of spending obligations beyond just interest owed to bondholders.
- rayiner 3y ago
  “Debt” isn’t an ambiguous term that requires creative interpretation. The Magna Carta from 1215 has several provisions addressing “debt,” “interest,” “sureties,” etc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]