Make a prediction for great bragging rights!

I vote "Other" - which is actually a [qualified] Yes.

Option 2: Yes, there will be a default, but it will be a short "technical default" lasting only a few days - or a few hours.

Former_DJ

i just want him to 14th amendment mic drop, and then see the republicans say well actually the constitution didn't mean debts in the 21st century, but somehow does means guns in the 21st century..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjjbO5QsVrY

Good summary of Dem tactics

Debt isn't the only way the government gets money. They are the ones who literally make it. They could print more, but I don't even see why they would need to do that. I haven't been able to find any reason why the government can't just continue to send out checks to pay its bills and employees, and when they are cashed just send banks digital funds. This is money creation, not debt. It would likely increase inflation in the medium to long term, but it wouldn't be in default.

Likely increase inflation? How about definitely?

Nothing is definite, and there probably could be other things done before serious inflation kicked in (such as contesting the debt ceiling law with the supreme court). But that is a drawback, which is why I mentioned it. It would likely not cause more problems for the economy than would default.

The debt ceiling law is just silly in practice and likely unconstitutional in theory. It should never have been instituted.

its the same thing.
debt is money.
government gets money by issuing bonds.

Your logic here baffles me.

What part?

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see why the government can't do exactly the same things it normally does, apart from issuing bonds. When it sells bonds, it doesn't receive cash for them, it is just numbers in a computer. The numbers in the computer could just be increased without selling the bonds. Voila, they have money. It would be illegal for a company to do this, but not for the government.

Yes, they normally do get money by issuing bonds, but they don't have to issue bonds to create money.

how else ?
they get money through tax revenues or issuing bonds.

It still debt .

Government printing money is government monetizing the debt by the fed (any central banks).



We live in a debt monetary system .
Debt= money.

I understand that is how it normally works, but I don't think it would have to be done that way, or there is any way the congress could prevent the Treasury department from printing more money or just sending out digital currency. If there is, I would be interested in knowing about it.

Many legal experts believe the debt ceiling law is unconstitutional anyway.

Well the debt ceiling is a way to stop the treasury to print money .

Debt ceiling been implemented to save time by preventing government to run budget without having every time to go in front of congress to ask more money .
I don’t see why it would be unconstitutional.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debt-ceiling.asp

“Implementing a debt ceiling is practical, allowing the U.S. Treasury to easily issue bonds without having Congress approve it each and every time the federal government needs to raise money—a pretty cumbersome process. With a debt ceiling, the boundaries are in place for a more efficient monetary approval process.“

Because the 14th Amendment says the US cannot default on its debts. This has been all over the news. Many Democrats are asking Biden to invoke that reason for just forgetting the debt ceiling. I think it would be better to have the supreme court look at it though, and the Republicans would almost certainly take it to them if Biden ignores the debt ceiling for that reason. Maybe what I have suggested is effectively the same thing that would happen if he did invoke the amendment, but really I don't see why he would even have to do that. There is no one who is going to arrest the Treasury department if they ignore the law, and it seems unlikely to me that the supreme court would issue a preliminary injunction forcing the government to stop paying its bills, although I admit no expertise in this circumstance. Maybe Rococo or someone with more knowledge of constitutional law can let us know what they think.

This is a question of semantics, but I wonder if we aren't already in a state of "technical" default?

Treasury Secretary Yellin has testified to Congress that the [current] $31.4 trillion debt ceiling was reached on January 19th. The Government has avoided a full-fledged default by adopting certain "extraordinary measures" such as delaying payments into Government employees' retirement accounts and other "accounting gimmicks" that Secretary Yellin says Treasury cannot continue indefinitely. Treasury, since January 19th, has been prioritizing what obligations can be deferred - and how long they can be deferred - and what obligations cannot be deferred.

Fitch Rating Service has put the United States on a "Credit Warning" which is one step away from an actual downgrade. Again, it's a question of semantics, but when you get behind on your debts and your credit card issuer starts sending you threatening letters; aren't you considered to be in "technical" default - or does that only occur when you try to stiff your bank by filing for bankruptcy? Maybe this question might best be answered by one Donald J. Trump who has quite a bit of experience stiffing banks and filing for bankruptcy.

During the CNN Townhall, when asked about the debt ceiling negotiations, Mr. Trump said if Republicans don't get "... everything they want - and the kitchen sink!" they should default. Of course, if he were President right now, we probably wouldn't be having this debt ceiling crisis as the Government spending too much money is only a "Big Problem" when a Democrat is in the White House. <insert sarcasm emoticon here ...>

imho u just cant do that.
u would basically give the budget into the hand of the executive in the president hands instead of congress where it is now right ?

u think its a good idea to increase the "dominance" of presidential powers ?

again my understanding is the debt ceiling been created to prevent the government to need congress approval on any issuance of debts(bonds), could u imagine without a debt ceiling how
inefficient it would be ?

the irony in all of this saga is on 78 debt ceiling increased, 49 was under republican president...the fiscally "responsible" party .
But we all know how fact matters for them...

Republicans are testing Americans’ intelligence with debt talks

Republicans seem to believe this hostage-taking stunt of theirs —
which could hurl the U.S. economy into a recession — will help them politically.

Keeping in mind that today’s conservatives aren’t exactly known for their brilliance,
their public ponderings that a debt default could serve them politically are
remarkable in that they show a tremendous lack of respect for Americans’ intelligence.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/re...ence-rcna86284

The largest holder of US debt is the US government. Just say the debt is sacrosanct like the constitution says and be done with the debate. Dare someone to find standing and sue and then dare the supreme court to make us default so it's their fault.

How many times does McCarthy say "It's not my fault?

Crisis averted.

Great job by President Biden and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy.

What a surprise

Hold your horses Kimo Sabi. A "deal in principle" is not a done deal. Both houses of Congress have to vote on (and pass) this deal before it goes to the President for his signature. Utah senator Mike Lee has already said he will hold up and delay the bill with procedural motions once it leaves the House and arrives in the Senate. More than one of the more strident conservative House Republicans, (Chip Roy of Texas is one), have expressed reservations about the deal. McCarthy can't afford to lose too many Republican votes.

Assuming the bill gets out of the House, if senator Lee keeps his word, the June 5th "X Date" becomes increasingly likely to be reached and we're then in default. This is the "optimistic" scenario. If McCarthy fails to muster enough votes for the bill to pass the House, then it's anybody's guess as to when this "crisis" is resolved. We also haven't heard from Trump. If he decides to stick his nose into it and repeat what he said during the CNN Townhall, (i.e., "If Republicans don't get everything they want - and the kitchen sink!" then he says Republicans should [vote for] default.

It's a bit premature to say that this crisis has been averted. The jury is still out. I notice that I'm the only one in this poll who believes that a default will occur. This is one time I hope I'm wrong ...