Because the debt ceiling in no way limits Congressional spending or tax laws. People seem to think the debt ceiling is a limit on how much we can borrow in the future to spend, but it's really a limit on how much we can borrow to pay off debt congress already created. That is a significant difference that is almost always left out of the debate, and while it's understandable among the average Joe, it's totally ridiculous coming from Senators who should (and possibly do) know better. Basically it's the difference between cutting up your credit cards to avoid more spending and buying a ton of stuff on your credit card then refusing to make any payments. Our credit rating was downgraded primarily because our government contemplated refusing to make good on its debts. Or in other words, Congress agreed to spend money but came very close to preventing the government from being able to borrow the money to fund that spending.
Congress is well within its authority to limit debt using tools like decreasing spending and increasing revenue. Doing it by pretending our debt doesn't exist is incredibly, stupidly reckless.
If I budget buying a new car but I don't have enough money to do so, is it really wise to obtain and max out yet another credit card just because I've already budgeted for it? This is what we're discussing. Passing a budget and authorizing spending doesn't mean we HAVE to spend that much money even if we don't have it, it simply authorizes spending that much money.
But hey, you guys are in charge. If you truly believe our downgrading was merely because we weren't timely in increasing our debt ceiling, then removing the debt ceiling should be the wise thing to do. We'll just borrow as much money as we want, and when we can't make our interest payments, why, we'll just borrow more money to pay them. Makes tax increases rather pointless though - is it really worth taking money out of the economy during these tough economic times just to punish the rich when we can simply borrow another trillion or two as long as we're prompt in raising our credit limit? I mean sure, I know government handling adds the magic dust - everyone knows that - but surely money not recently confiscated and redistributed by government has SOME economic impact. Wouldn't it be wiser to simply borrow another trillion or two or punish the rich some other way? Perhaps we can make them wear funny hats. Or big yellow stars on their clothes . . . Or am I missing something - could it be that above a certain income and/or wealth level, one's money actually harms the economy?
And I'm also curious as to your explanation for why we actually shut down the government during the Clinton administration without a downgrade, since apparently the huge difference in our national debt is completely immaterial. Shouldn't an actual shutdown be much more damaging under your understanding of economics than simply not raising the limit quickly enough? Wait - I bet it's because the Messiah is black! Damned racist bankers! That's it, isn't it?
Yeah, but who wants to see them strip searched? Why isn't Kaley Cuoco or Kelly Stables ever the true threat to our beloved republic?
Facebook
Twitter