comment: >
  
  
  The point of the ceiling...is to stop and address the issue
  
  It's not really big deal (especially since it appears this thread was killed), I was questioning whether that really was the point at the time of adoption - what was Congress thinking when they added this (1917) and why did they do it?
context: In short? It would quite literally cripple the economies of most of the Western World and cause severe short-term and long-term financial crisis. Just flirting with this stupid disaster in 2011 - not even actual default, just the idea that they could - resulted in a loss of billions of dollars. It's reckless, irresponsible, and incredibly dangerous to even entertain at the highest levels of government. >
  
  Well I mean its going to have to be dealt with eventually. Debt-to-gdp ratio has been increasing since like the 80s. So it should be a concern for the highest levels of government. >
  
  The debt ceiling does not prevent debt from being accrued, only from being paid. >
  
  Indeed, which is why I asked what his plan was for that.  The point of the ceiling(which I agree is a failure of a legislation) is to stop and address the issue. >
  
  I have spent some time looking at the history of the debt ceiling and I've seen nothing that indicates the point of it is what you say.   Perhaps you can provide more information on that? >
  
  The debt ceiling is the monetary amount the government is allowed to use on finacining existing obligations. They suspend/raise the limit to cover new/future obligations instead of causing a default.
  Near constant raising of the ceiling is a indicator that excessive borrowing is occurring. Thus doing away with the ceiling entirely is obfuscation of the larger debt issue as its a removal of an indicator. Which is why I asked the person above what his plan for addressing debt was as he wanted to permanently remove said indicator.
  The person I replied to believes the government can accrue infinite debt(if you read his further responses)  as he claims the government can never default on its repayments if the ceiling is removed. This is a misrepresentation of modern monetary theory. There  is a hard limit and well before that limit there are negative impacts on government if the debt to gdp ratio gets high enough which would force the government to address through raising taxes or unbacked printing of money. >
  
  None of that addresses the question I asked
  Edit: in the context of the actual history.  I get you think it is the point. >
  
  I'm not sure in what context your asking. Forcing congress to vote to keep up their political theater keeps the issue in the public eye is what im saying. Actually defaulting by any means is something to avoid.