4 ms·
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 res
by 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 agoI'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]