Surely this is all Geithner wants... /s.
If the ceiling is raised, they will take that as free reign to spend spend spend spend spend.
>Would Geithner Be Content With A Debt Ceiling Raise Just Enough To Avoid Defaulting...
No, because they will still spend money that they don’t have and then we’ll have another “Debt Ceiling Raise Just Enough To Avoid Defaulting” ad infinitum.
The politicians in both parties do not want to cut spending -- that is why they will raise the debt ceiling: they INTEND to take us further into debt.
The government collects $150 billion in taxes a month after interest payments.
The government spends $260 billion in taxes a month.
Cut $110 billion. EPA, DOE, HUD, the three initial departments that can disappear are endless.
Current revenues are sufficient to pay the interest on the debt without default. If this were not so, we would already be in default. Current revenues are not sufficient to pay the interest payments AND pay for all the other programs/obligations already on the Federal plate. This is why we have a yearly deficit. Without a debt ceiling increase, program cuts across the board will be forced, which Congress is obviously loathe to do themselves. I believe that is EXACTLY what should happen.
The only reason they want to raise the debt ceiling is to BORROW/SPEND MORE MONEY.
It is as simple as that!
Tim, it’s Visa on the phone again for you...
ML/NJ
Shouldn’t Republicans be lowering the debt ceiling?
Why is the argument about (how much) to raise it?
Lower it. Then keep lowering it.
Simple, balance this year’s budget...no debt ceiling increase needed!
As others have said, potential default has nothing to do with the debt ceiling...current tax revenues are vastly more than enough to cover current interest payments.
Maybe I am Stupid, but it seems to me that if you REFUSE TO BORROW ANY MORE MONEY, ie. not raise the debt ceiling, That is, By Default, a BALANCED BUDGET. So why in the hell do we need some silly “Balanced Budget Amendment”???????