Every 2 years we go through this charade . There is a debt ceiling . That means the debt cannot be above the agreed to amount . And every year Federal spending exceeds that .
There are some that ask why have a ceiling ? The answer is that there has to be some pretense of discipline.

So now the Armegeddon of default is threatened if the waskly Repubs don't cave in on raising the ceiling . And the Repubs will cave at the 11th hour . The negotiations are all about giving them some face saving rhetoric to give to their base.

About that threat . The 14th Amendment sec 4 says that the government cannot repudiate the debt . To avoid that the Treasury has to be able to pay the interest on the debt as it comes due.

Here is a dirty little secret that doesn't get discussed.......
The Treasury collects more than enough revenue to accomplish that .

Some numbers according to Treasury:
Tax receipts in March were $313 billion and interest payments were $67billion. April receipts were $639 billion and interest was $62 billion.
mts.xls (treasury.gov) (https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts.pdf)

Prioritizing interest payments on debt could temporarily or permanently shut down parts of the Federal government. But in reality ,that is where decisions have to be made and negotiated . It is nonsense to use the threat of default . It aint happening .


But what it means is that Sec Treasury Janet Yellen would have to prioritize paying the debt over other spending . Raising the debt ceiling would allow the progressive Dems to continue to fund all their pet projects .It would allow the war hawks to continue to send mega-bucks down the Ukraine war rabbit hole.
The threat of default is an empty one that both sides pretend would be the consequences of not increasing the debt .
Treasury is also capable of issuing bonds as old bonds mature with minimal impact on the debt .

Don't know what is the bigger joke, the continual brinkmanship or the actual dollar amount....

Ben it is a national embarrassment. But when debt exceeds GDP a nation has a serious problem . One side sort of wants to address it .The Dems seem to think debt doesn't matter . I saw the absurd arguement that it doesn't matter because we owe it to ourselves . ???????????????????

This is the opinion of leading progressive economist Paul Krugman

Opinion | Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Debt - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/opinion/biden-republicans-debt.html)

So lets say you loan me money and I can't pay it back . Thaty makes you poorer and it makes me poorer because next time if you loan me money at all ,it would cost me even more to pay it back.

Many American's own the debt I own bonds and trade in them all the time. But Krugman is wrong. Many foreign countries like China also own American debt . The US cannot afford to default . The good news is that it is unconstitutional for the US to default .

So called "progressives " in the Dem caucus are pressuring Clueless Joe over the debt ceiling negotiations. One; Pramila Jayapal said that the left would take to the streets if he accepted spending cuts.


“I think there would be a huge backlash from our entire House Democratic Caucus, certainly the progressives, but also in the streets,” Jayapal told CNN of a potential “bad deal.”

Parties ramp up pressure to hold the line in debt talks | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/23/politics/progressives-conservatives-pressure-debt-ceiling-negotiators/index.html)

There is a fair debate about whether the increased spending was justified during the covid pandemic. I believe that the $ trillions of monopoly bucks caused the inflation problems we face today. But the pandemic has been declared officially over . There is no need to continue spending at the levels reached. A minimum of bringing spending back to 2019 levels should be a no-brainer.

Clueless knows a recession is on the horizon caused by the necessary Fed actions to fix the inflation mess caused by his reckless spending . The Conference Board gives it a 99% chance.

The odds of a recession are high. 4 things to do with your money now - MarketWatch (https://www.marketwatch.com/picks/one-indicator-puts-the-odds-of-a-recession-at-99-here-are-4-things-to-do-with-your-money-now-to-prepare-dd254aa9#:~:text=According%20to%20this%20analysis% 20from,within%20the%20next%2012%20months.)

His plan going into the 2024 election is to pin the blame on the Repubs. That is why you hear Armageddon language from Treasury Sec Yellen.

Why not blame the Repubs ? It always worked during the emperor's reign . Shut down a couple of National Parks and the Repubs folded like cheap tents. 1st Clueless said he would not talk about the debt ceiling until the Repubs passed a bill in the House . He did not think that was possible because the Repubs had a chaotic process selecting McCarthy as Speaker . Well he was able to get almost all the Repubs to agree to the bill he put forward and the House passed it.

The Senate is the no show body . Clueless moved the goal post . Publicly he says he will not agree to spending cuts . That may have been sound strategy if he was the emperor with large public support . But his approval is in the low 30% range. If this was a Parliamentary system there would've already been a no confidence vote.

If we are in a recession in 2024 he and the Dems are toast.

I wish these a$$wipes in the swamp would settle this already . They are doing a number on my portfolio . This keeps up another few days I will have to consider going back to work .

Clueless and Congress left for a long holiday weekend . Shows how serious they are about debt ceiling negotiations .
Whatever deal is struck will require both Houses of Congress and the President to agree to. McCarthy has a razor thin majority and some hard line Repubs who correctly will not budge if there is no spending cuts included in the deal .

Schmucky can derail any bill passed by the House AND on top of that ;new House rules adopted this year says that a bill has to be on the floor for 3 days before a final vote. The deadline will be exactly 3 days after they return if we believe Treasury Sec Yellen.
The latest deal being reported would raise the ceiling for 2 years and cap spending . In other words ;no spending cuts . Good luck with that .

There will be a "deal" that is more show than anything else. I don't see much hope for this.

Nope it is like the couple who maxed out on the credit card and are having a heated debate over whether they should increase their card credit limit to $52 thousand or $47 thousand instead of cutting their spending and starting the procress of paying off the card .
Well add a whole bunch of zeros to the numbers above(into the $trillions ) ,and that is the essence of the disagreement between Clueless and the Repubs.

It is a politician's dreamworld where spending is "generous" while taxes are kept low. Their great hope is that the day of reckoning will be still several years down the road. No one will want to be around when that happens.

amazingly Janet Yellen found 4 more days . Imagine that !

4 extra days: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen issues new potential date for looming default (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/4-extra-days-treasury-secretary-janet-yellen-issues-new-potential-date-for-looming-default/ar-AA1bK6eG?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=73c5f96fa9a0484d839d03ca9857c857&ei=10)

How do you see all of this sorting out? Do you see anything really meaningful coming out of it?

A deal will have to be made .

The exact deadline date is fluid because tax receipts comes in every day. This year is more complicated because Californians were given a filing extension due to the winter storms . The next big tax due date is June 15th quarterly estimated taxes deadline

We are at the brink because the Repubs dare to suggest we should hold spending to 2022 levels. A far cry from balancing the budget .

The Dems won't budge . They want increases in spending and still think wealth taxes would solve all the problems. This is not a revenue problem . It is a spending problem. They are also balking over the audacity of having abled bodied work requirements for freebees .

How will this go ? Repubs will cave after a face saving deal is struck . You know like Wimpy saying 'I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today' .

The compliant press is only reporting on the dangers to the economy if the waskelly Reubs irresponsibly don't pony up for money already spent . No one is asking how could that money be spent if it exceeded an agreed upon ceiling ?

The Freedom Caucus will grumble about a betrayal by McCarthy .

Can't remember where I saw this, but doesn't the US Constitution make it illegal for the US to default on this debt.
That being the case why is there all this artificial drama ever couple of years over this matter.....

Ben
After the Civil War there was a fear that some Congress in the future controlled by former Confederacy States would decide to not pay the debt that was made during the war or would vote in a law that Congress would pay for the debts incurred by the Confederacy. So in the 14th Amendment they added a clause to address that possibility.

Here is the entire Clause 4 of the 14th amendment. I will highlight the part that gets misinterpreted.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Clueless Joe says that this gives him the authority to take Executive Action . It does not .


Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear that Congress controls the purse strings .

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”Article I, section 9, clause 7

This "crisis" is just a drop in the bucket . Unless REAL reforms are made to mandatory entitlement spending then the money we are talking about here is just a drop in the bucket. The CBO says that unless something changes ;in the next 30 years ,we are bound to borrow $114 trillion to service entitlement obligations. We have only borrowed $32 trillion on the entire history of the country. Medicare insolvency is about 6 years away based on new estimates. Social Security will be shortly after .

Medicare insolvency is about 6 years away based on new estimates. Social Security will be shortly after .A situation so grave that everyone should be alarmed about it, but the "elect dems at all costs" news media continues to move along as though there is no story there. Perhaps the reason is that social security/medicare/medicaid spending have come to dominate the fed budget and account for nearly half of all spending. It is hard to imagine how that can be brought under control without some really significant spending cuts for programs directly affecting a voting block that is really large and very willing to get to the polls and vote.

I imagine the dems, if they can, will enact significant increases to the FICA taxes paid by employers, something like increasing from roughly 7% to 10 or 12%. The public will, as usual, think it does not affect them.

It's a bad situation. It's like a teenager who suddenly has to fend for himself after being raised by parents who lavished him with anything he asked for. It will be shocking. The real world can be pitiless.

49480

Bush's SS reforms would've worked . There was a built in transition period of a generation . Instead we've kicked the can down the road and we will most likely need to enact very similar reforms or there will be a major hair cut to recipients .

Medicare/Medicaid is a different issue. I think it is a Cloward-Pivin type intermediate plan that eventually leads to government in complete control of the health of the people. Medicare/Medicaid was introduced along with the beginning of the open border policies in 1965 A year later,1966 we were introduced the the Cloward-Pivin strategy of creating chaos . The plan was for universal income but it works as well for universal health care .

major hair cut to recipients .That will be political suicide for whatever political party enacts it. We probably should freeze SS payment amounts for a few years, or at least for every other year. That would help, but with inflation now running at 8 and 9 percent, thanks to our current idiot crop of pols, that would be difficult. Wifey and I would be OK, but others would suffer a lot.

It is a really thorny patch we are going to have to pass through. Gutless, visionless pols don't help any.

Medicare/MedicaidThat's an even worse problem. The spiraling cost of healthcare, which is never, ever, ever talked about, has put us on a path of what will be rationed med care.


In 2020, U.S. health care costs (https://www.thebalancemoney.com/healthcare-costs-3306068) totaled $4.1 trillion. That makes health care one of the country's largest expenses. Health spending accounted for 19.7% of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP).

In comparison, national health expenditures totaled $27.2 billion in 1960, just 5% of GDP.1 That translates to an annual health care cost of $12,530 per person in 2020 versus roughly $150 per person in 1960.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878

That cannot continue. It will bankrupt us. I can tell you that as a Medicare recipient, I never ask what a treatment will cost and don't really care since I basically don't have to pay for it, and therein lies your problem. The same thing would happen with oil changes if the gov agreed to pay for them. Only a healthy dose of free enterprise can solve this dilemma, but that would prove distasteful for the liberals who enjoy flattering themselves by forcing other people to be "charitable".

We once had a teacher who had cancer. The cost of her treatments were enormous, even though there was very little prospect of remission. Her costs were approaching half a million dollars, which was the insurance limit, but then the company (BlueCross) extended that limit to a million dollars. She quite likely spent very nearly that much so that her life could be extended by two or three years. That meant, of course, that everyone else's health insurance costs went up since BlueCross had to come up with the money to pay for that. Is that really a smart way to go? It's a tough question.

That cannot continue. It will bankrupt us. I can tell you that as a Medicare recipient, I never ask what a treatment will cost and don't really care since I basically don't have to pay for it, and therein lies your problem. The same thing would happen with oil changes if the gov agreed to pay for them. Only a healthy dose of free enterprise can solve this dilemma, but that would prove distasteful for the liberals who enjoy flattering themselves by forcing other people to be "charitable".
While Free Enterprise is a possible solution, it's not the only one available.
Look at the models used in Canada and UK for examples of another way.
Making treatments financially inaccessible to the majority of the population is even less sustainable than the current model.
The current levels of medical bankruptcies are an anachronism.

You can also look at the tax rates and lack of choices in the UK and Canada.

It is free enterprise that has accounted for most of the amazing advances in med technology in the past hundred years.

But you're right in that it is going to be a tough deal to solve.

Actually, there is choice for treatment in both countries, it comes under the second opinion option that's available to all.
However, for simple, everyday alignments, rapid treatment is far more important than shopping around.

I'd rather pay for universal healthcare as part of the tax regime then as an additional cost after the fact.
The PAYE system the UK operates alleviates that out of pocket pain.

The problem.


TORONTO — When Sharon Shamblaw was diagnosed last summer with a form of blood cancer that could only be treated with a particular stem cell transplant, the search for a donor began. A Toronto hospital, 100 miles east of her home in St. Mary's, Ontario, and one of three facilities in the province that could provide the life-saving treatment, had an eight-month waiting list for transplants.

Four months after her diagnosis, Shamblaw headed to Buffalo, New York, for treatment. But it was too late. She died at the age of 46, leaving behind a husband and three children, as detailed by the Toronto Star (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/04/27/sharons-story-trip-to-buffalo-for-stem-cell-transplant-came-too-late.html).

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care#:~:text=Canadians%20seek%20treatment%20abroad %20The%20Fraser%20Institute%2C%20a,who%20sought%20 medical%20care%20abroad%20the%20previous%20year.

I'd prefer to see a system where we all pay for our ordinary medical treatments such as eye exams, sore throats, minor surgery, and so forth. For the dramatic events, the gov could possibly step in. If I had to pay for some of these treatments I've had done, I would shop around for a good deal. It would be like buying a car.

That's a bad example as the lack of donor could easily be the actual root cause, rather than the reported waiting list.
Cancer is a hard one to treat even with all the funds and facilities to hand.

So in the UK system, access to a General Practitioner (Family Doctor) is free, you then pay an amount for any medications.
Hospitalisations, for whatever reason including referrals and treatment, again is free.
This is paid for by all adults via the National Insurance scheme.

You can, if you like, also purchase additional health insurance, which allows access to private facilities.
This is not, however, a panacea.
Many Major treatments such as long term cancer care would still be dealt with by the Universal Health system.

For things like dental and eye care, you have the shop around option, as this tends to be private.
Minors get these costs covered by the Universal scheme again, more complex treatments are also deal with in this system.

Your choice, be forced to on cost your health care out of your pocket, as you believe in free choice, of get seen in a more straightforward manner...
While you are supporting the Free Market economy, watch while the mandatory insurance sector becomes bloated with excess profits.

So, who actually has a choice in all of this, you or I ?

Canada their solution is to off the geezers and the destitute .
They call it MAID but I call it MAD

Medical assistance in dying - Canada.ca (https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assistance-dying.html)

This is the emperor saying take the pain killer instead of getting the expensive treatment .

Obama's Health Care Solution for Elderly - Just take a Pill - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y)

None of it is “free”.

There would be no insurance for routine matters, and so no “bloated” profits.

I would speculate it is not paid for by “all adults”. I doubt the poor and homeless pay in a dime.

Debt Deal . I won't know until the final bill is on the table and negotiations in the House and with the Senate are finished .

Initial observation is that Speaker McCarthy did the best he could with the hand he was given...... a razor thin majority in the House (that should've been bigger ) ;a Dem Senate (that should've been a Repub majority ;and a President who doesn't care if the country goes belly up .Oh and one other thing ;a neo-con faction in both parties who refuse to budge on Defense spending reductions even though there is plenty of fat to trim in the Defense budget .How can you negotiate down discretionary spending when the biggest chunk of it is off the table ? And of course no real debt deal can be made without entitlement reforms .

Have I said lately that the senior Senator from my state is a moron ?

COMBATE |���� on Twitter: "Lindsey Graham: "The Russians are dying... it's the best money we've ever spent." https://t.co/Vn1THUjHmO" / Twitter (https://twitter.com/upholdreality/status/1662556104444846082)

There were some needed concessions by Clueless Joe and if passed the deal paves the way forward to 2024 .Repubs need the wave they thought they would have(and could have had ) in 2022.

Been waiting to see your analysis of this situation. Basically, nothing of real substance took place which is about what should have been expected. What about some deal about a natural gas pipeline? Have you read anything on that?

There should be at least a three or four percent cut across the board on all spending. Defense could lose that much and, if managed properly, not really miss it. No more welfare for the sound of mind and body as long as unemployment is under some level, say four percent.

What about some deal about a natural gas pipeline? Have you read anything on that?
The Dems want to keep Manchin in their camp. The Repubs have nothing to lose by having a pipeline approved .


Let's see what happens in the Senate . Tim Kaine has already signaled he opposes it . I'm betting the Senate amends the bill to remove it .

And I'm sure when all is said and done , some enviro-wackos will tie it up in court .

This could be me soon .

Inflation, government spending are pulling boomers out of retirement (usatoday.com) (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2023/05/28/inflation-government-spending-are-pulling-boomers-out-of-retirement/70254240007/)

Housing isn't my concern I am completely debt free. It is just cost of living on a fixed (no ) income.

The bill passed the House Rules Committee 7-6 . On to the full House where I can't decide who is chirping louder , the progressive left or the Freedom caucus .

Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Chip Roy of Texas, and all four of the committee's Democrats, voted against the measure.Once Repub . Thomas Massie announced that he would vote in favor of the rule, the conservative effort to tank the bill in committee was defeated .The Dems were always going to vote no because they are partisan hacks ;even as the bill was endorsed by their own puppet in the White House.

Only one Dem that I know of made a legit point. Jim McGovern argued against the bill's paperwork requirments to get federal assistance benefits . His patronizing attitude appears to be that the poor are too stupid to fill out the paperwork so the bill would make the poor poorer. But he has a point when he said "We don't hold the Defense Department accountable for cost overruns" "Yet we are doubling down on poor people."

In the Senate ,Lindsey Graham continues to slam the bill because he wants even more defense spending.

Graham blasts defense spending in debt ceiling deal as ‘a joke’ | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4024334-graham-blasts-defense-spending-in-debt-ceiling-deal-as-a-joke/)


If you go through the budget and allocations it is easy to find areas where spending could be reversed . Hey the Pentagon recently found $3 billion more for Ukraine just by sharpening their # 2 Ticonderoga pencils and doing accounting tricks.
Pentagon Says Accounting Mistake Frees Up $3 Billion More for Ukraine - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/us/politics/ukraine-spending-congress.html)

Amazing how we are willing to borrow money to be used for the military of a country not named "United States".

The House bill passed last night after a procedural vote was approved . 29 Repubs defected and voted against it The procedure passed because 50 Dems stepped up to vote with McCarthy. Supposedly McCarthy cut a deal with Dem Minority leader Hakeem Jefferies . The Dems who voted for the procedural vote stayed in the chamber while the Repub votes were registered . Then Jefferies held up a green card .Only then did the 50 Dems vote yes.

The final bill passed 314-117 vote, with 71 Republicans and 46 Democrats voting against it.

Many of the Dems that voted yay are members of the bi-partisan 'Problem Solvers Caucus' that was formed in 2017 to find common ground in the House and break gridlock .


I expect that the bill will pass in the Senate after the Dems dilute many of the deal provisions that were agreed on by Clueless Joe and McCarthy .

Will Yertle wake up for the debates or will he let Schmucky run roughshod over the process ? Will Lindsey Graham kill the bill because we haven't given Ukraine nukes to use on Russia ? Bottom line . If the Senate makes ANY revisions to the bill then it would have to be put through a Conference Committee review and then sent back to the House for a new vote. There is still a chance that there will be a default .

The Senate passed the debt ceiling bill and also passed a bill that would stop the nonsense student loan forgiveness. [Clueless Joe will of course veto that bill But the Senate Dems can say on the campaign trail ..... 'hey at least we tried ' ]

Speaker McCarthy was the face of the debt ceiling debate. Clueless pretty much sat this one out , The House passed the initial bill that forced the President to the negotiation table. McCarthy then met with the White House a number of times hashing out a compromise .

Then he took it to the House floor and did what House Speakers are supposed to do .....got it done despite opposition from inside his own caucus and the Dems .

Schmucky to his credit knew that it was critically important to get the bill through the Senate .

Basically this was punting the debt crisis until after the 2024 elections.McCarthy showed that he could if necessary forge a bi-partisan coalition . This will not please the burn it down crowd from both parties . But sometimes it is better to choose which mountain to defend . It would've done no one any good to allow a default.

For the Repubs the message is clear . Win elections and secure majorities in Congress and elect a Repub President . Then use the Dem model of getting your agenda passed into law.

'The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023' . Sometimes the names they give these bills are ironic parodies . There is nothing fiscally responsible about the passage of this bill . It was a necessary kicking the can down to road for 2 more years . They increased the debt ceiling and called it responsible debt reduction . They must stay up late at night reading Orwell. Now they don't have to think about being fiscally responsible for another 2 years . They will campaign saying how fiscally responsible they were .

They brag about not touching entitlements when it is clear that is the fiscally responsible thing to do to get the long term debt under control. By law if they don't put a fix on SS there will be a 20% cut in benefits in less than a decade .

Not touching Social Security could lead to a 20% benefit cut within a decade | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/08/politics/social-security-benefit-cut/index.html)

Medicare they are already cutting physician fees that are being passed on to the patient .

The money for entitlements are not in the trust fund. So the money will come from general funds. But the cupboard is bare . The CBO estimates that it will take a staggering $114 trillion in borrowing in the next 30 years . Hello !!!! That's 200 % of GDP .
Fiscally responsible my A$$ ,$$$, $$$, $$$ ,$$$, !!! That's 4x what we have borrowed in the history of the US .

. What about some deal about a natural gas pipeline? Have you read anything on that?

Best guess . This is a tradeoff. There will be quicker EPA reviews (2 years max) and in return more law suits. The full impact of this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) revision with all the legal actions that are sure to follow will take years to sort out. Developers can go to court if they feel the study is taking too long but that would mean them suing the agency that can give a green light on their project . Would they risk it ?
Envirowackos will not be happy that any part of the process is streamlined. They too will use the courts for relief.