>

An easy solution is to cut $130 Billion, the amount the GOP extremists are seeking, right off the top of the military budget. Problem solved.
Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

The debt limit is unconstitutional. Congress already authorized the debt when they passed last years' budget. The 14th amendment declares that the validity of that debt shall not be questioned, and any legislation preventing payment of that debt is unconstitutional. 
The Treasury department should just declare that the 14th amendment renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional and they will continue to make interest payments on the federal government's debts. >


The Treasury department should just declare that the 14th amendment renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional and they will continue to make interest payments on the federal government's debts.

Thr treasury doesn't have this power, and for good reason. Any entity should never be the writer/interpreter for their own scope of power
Edit: to clarify for people responding to me

The spending bill is not "law", it is a concurrent resolution and does not have "force of law" 
The 14th amendment does not inherently grant any powers to the treasury, and any interpretation that the president could use it to raise the debt ceiling is just that - an interpretation. Until there is historic, legal precedence, it is a moot point, especially considering our current justices.

Edit 2: also, I glossed over this just because it's so "wrong" - the treasury can't "declare" anything unconstitutional. They can sue another department to comply with certain laws, but there's 1. No entity/department to sue, unless you think they can sue congress and 2. There's no laws compelling anyone to raise the debt ceiling
The Treasury can argue that the 14th amendment grants the power to raise the debt ceiling all they want, even if it was the case it would have to be passed by the house, the treasury has no say in it at all >


Any entity should never be the writer/interpreter for their own scope of power

They wouldn't be. Congress already voted on the spending measures and authorized the Treasury to pay them. >

Yea they would, regardless of the spending bill that was passed the house and senate have to approve raising the debt ceiling and allow spending beyond it.
The debt ceiling is a completely separate issue >

It's the same issue. The spending bill approves spending the next year, then the debt ceiling creates an artificial fight about actually paying for the spending. The amounts and programs are already approved.
The debt ceiling is an artificial political tool that is likely unconstitutional. >

Sigh. 
I don't care if they are "basically" the same thing. Legally, which is all that matters in this instance, they are recognized as two separate issues. >

Legally, the 14th makes a debt ceiling unconstitutional. It just hasn't been challenged yet. >

See, the thing is, until that interpretation is codified, it doesn't matter we both think it should. >

Here’s how McCarthy is screwed even if he wants to be reasonable at let the US pay its already committed obligations- any bill that comes to the house needs to be put up by the house speaker. 
Any attempt to bring said bill without the extreme faction’s blessing will start a new vote for speaker. 
McCarthy has to satiate the extreme blood lust of the Magas or he’s toast and the Magas want it all to burn to the ground. >

And all this would be fun as hell to watch... if it wasn't for the fact that this clown show will cause huge economic woes for everyone but the super rich. >

Generally in this situation we start our political Kabuki dance.  This time might be different.  McCarthy promised a lot to gain the speakership.  It's quite probable that he will not be able to negotiate with the Dems for a debt raising deal.  Primarily because those negotiations will involve the repubs doing things that he has already promised he would not do.  As soon as that happens "slappy" matt gaetz objects, the speaker faces a leadership test, and all hell breaks loose.
Kabuki dance?  Nah.  Foot stomping - banjo bashing - all out country square dance!  Let them pigs out aunt mildred.......SUUUUWEEEEEE!!! >


WASHINGTON — The U.S. government is hitting its statutory debt limit on Thursday, requiring the Treasury Department to begin resorting to "extraordinary measures" to pay the bills.
In a recent letter to congressional leaders, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said those special financial tools can extend until "early June" and that Congress will need to act to prevent default.
"Yet the use of extraordinary measures enables the government to meet its obligations for only a limited amount of time. It is therefore critical that Congress act in a timely manner to increase or suspend the debt limit," Yellen wrote.
"Failure to meet the government's obligations would cause irreparable harm to the U.S. economy, the livelihoods of all Americans, and global financial stability," she said. "Indeed, in the past, even threats that the U.S. government might fail to meet its obligations have caused real harms, including the only credit rating downgrade in the history of our nation in 2011."

Because bringing 'accountability' back to Washington means saying, "Fuck it, we won't pay the bills anymore."
The only money a conservative tries to save is his own. And even this doesn't try to help that. >

Imagine a world where "approving the budget" and "approving the means to fund that budget" were the same action. 
I have to assume more developed countries deal with this better? >

Many of them used to but unfortunately a lot of them are also being taken over by people who hate accountability.
Just look at the shit going on in the United Kingdom. >

An easy solution is to cut $130 Billion, the amount the GOP extremists are seeking, right off the top of the military budget. Problem solved. >

It does make up the largest portion of our spending. Makes sense to cut there first. >

If we adhered to our own NATO guidelines and set our defense budget as 2% of our GDP it would shave off about $350 Billion yearly. That will fund everything all other developed countries have and we still lack. Sick and Family leave. Education. Healthcare. Social Security. Childcare. Infrastructure. Housing. >

But, but… muh freebrhams >

Call in the hostage negotiators >

Luckily, George Santos once talked a group of Libyan plane hijackers into surrendering peacefully. So we're good. >

The "debt limit" serves no purpose other than a political cudgel for "conservatives". An entirely political construct that literally means nothing.
Solution? Biden just directs the Treasury to continue payments as normal.
Full faith and credit, motherfuckers. >

This. Force Congress to sue the administration over it. WH Counsel will point straight to the 14th amendment. >

Meanwhile Republicans continue to cut taxes on the wealthy and refuse to fund the IRS, forcing more of our spending to require debt. They set up multi trillion dollar cash grabs for their buddies every time they come into power (see: the double wars in the Bush years, the PPP loan scam). And then they choose not to go after frivolous spending but instead threaten to cut poor people's healthcare and send seniors into the streets.
These people are terrorists. >

When all the >65 crowd can't access healthcare because their Medicare insurance premium has not been paid - perhaps then they will comprehend that GOP hate. >

Karen just got her credit card bill, she thinks it’s too high and she wants to cut it, that’s the Republicans every time. >

Republicans are doing us all a favor. Increasing economic uncertainty means more companies will cut thousands more jobs, which will help keep inflation under control. Maintaining their dividend payments and record profits will also push those stocks higher to balance out the inevitable losses. 
Gooo R's!
/S   igh >

The GQP signed the American taxpayers up for several high interest credit cards. And now that the bill is due, they’re refusing to pay. >

I think the last president to actually pay down our debt was Clinton. Seems silly to me and probably anyone else with a bank account that they just spend spend spend. That said, dems are like raise the limit period. Rep are like only if you meet these 47 demands. Um >

Sovereign debt and personal debt aren’t the same thing. >


Fourteenth Amendment, 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.

The debt limit is unconstitutional. Congress already authorized the debt when they passed last years' budget. The 14th amendment declares that the validity of that debt shall not be questioned, and any legislation preventing payment of that debt is unconstitutional. 
The Treasury department should just declare that the 14th amendment renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional and they will continue to make interest payments on the federal government's debts. >


The Treasury department should just declare that the 14th amendment renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional and they will continue to make interest payments on the federal government's debts.

Thr treasury doesn't have this power, and for good reason. Any entity should never be the writer/interpreter for their own scope of power
Edit: to clarify for people responding to me

The spending bill is not "law", it is a concurrent resolution and does not have "force of law" 
The 14th amendment does not inherently grant any powers to the treasury, and any interpretation that the president could use it to raise the debt ceiling is just that - an interpretation. Until there is historic, legal precedence, it is a moot point, especially considering our current justices.

Edit 2: also, I glossed over this just because it's so "wrong" - the treasury can't "declare" anything unconstitutional. They can sue another department to comply with certain laws, but there's 1. No entity/department to sue, unless you think they can sue congress and 2. There's no laws compelling anyone to raise the debt ceiling
The Treasury can argue that the 14th amendment grants the power to raise the debt ceiling all they want, even if it was the case it would have to be passed by the house, the treasury has no say in it at all >


Any entity should never be the writer/interpreter for their own scope of power

They wouldn't be. Congress already voted on the spending measures and authorized the Treasury to pay them. >

Yea they would, regardless of the spending bill that was passed the house and senate have to approve raising the debt ceiling and allow spending beyond it.
The debt ceiling is a completely separate issue >

It's the same issue. The spending bill approves spending the next year, then the debt ceiling creates an artificial fight about actually paying for the spending. The amounts and programs are already approved.
The debt ceiling is an artificial political tool that is likely unconstitutional. >

Sigh. 
I don't care if they are "basically" the same thing. Legally, which is all that matters in this instance, they are recognized as two separate issues. >

Legally, the 14th makes a debt ceiling unconstitutional. It just hasn't been challenged yet. >

See, the thing is, until that interpretation is codified, it doesn't matter we both think it should. >

Here’s how McCarthy is screwed even if he wants to be reasonable at let the US pay its already committed obligations- any bill that comes to the house needs to be put up by the house speaker. 
Any attempt to bring said bill without the extreme faction’s blessing will start a new vote for speaker. 
McCarthy has to satiate the extreme blood lust of the Magas or he’s toast and the Magas want it all to burn to the ground. >

And all this would be fun as hell to watch... if it wasn't for the fact that this clown show will cause huge economic woes for everyone but the super rich. >

Generally in this situation we start our political Kabuki dance.  This time might be different.  McCarthy promised a lot to gain the speakership.  It's quite probable that he will not be able to negotiate with the Dems for a debt raising deal.  Primarily because those negotiations will involve the repubs doing things that he has already promised he would not do.  As soon as that happens "slappy" matt gaetz objects, the speaker faces a leadership test, and all hell breaks loose.
Kabuki dance?  Nah.  Foot stomping - banjo bashing - all out country square dance!  Let them pigs out aunt mildred.......SUUUUWEEEEEE!!!