comment: >
  
  Missing a single payment would not cause an economic collapse unless there was reason to believe we would be missing large amounts of future payments as well.
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. >
  
  
  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? >
  
  I'll just wait until they start shutting the government down for shits and grins like Trump did.
  But if they ever do anything do anything to stop Social Security checks from being sent or Medicare from being paid they will reap what they sow.
  and if Rick Scott thinks cutting Social Security is a great idea, I agree it's a great idea to get 95% of Americans to vote Democrat and see the GOP for the uncaring greed monsters and anti freedom villains they are. IMHO >
  
  If you thought 2008 was bad, defaulting on the debt will make that look like paradise. It won’t just effect america, either, it will cripple the global economy. You’ll see massive increases in poverty, which will lead to massive increases in crime. 
  No sane person would even think about defaulting on the debt. >
  
  Why exactly would that happen though?  Who do we owe the money to? China? Screw them, sorry. Come and get it. >
  
  The biggest owners of U.S debt are the American people who buy U.S government bonds.
  U.S government bonds are considered one of the safest, most reliable, least risky investments in the world.
  If the U.S defaults on our debt, we stop paying those bonds. That would ruin our credibility as a destination for the world's investment dollars. The bonds would lose their value overnight, which which would basically tank the entire U.S economy. >
  
  No - those that invested in bonds simply gambled and lost.  Sorry.  Bad investment.  Happens to people all the time and there's no tears being shed for them.  Im tired of this debt crap.  Either fix the problem by HUGE spending cuts or stop talking about it.  Its so stupid to keep dong this.  This is going to go on forever then?  Bunch of BS. >
  
  Well financed debt is fine. It doesn't hurt us.
  If you stop paying the bonds, that will absolutely wreck the economy. I'm glad you are not in charge, otherwise the entire U.S economy would go down the toilet. >
  
  This will be one of the high points of their middle-school, mean-girl reign of juvenilian terror.  Look for their obstructions to a sink to a new low.  Vile, odious cesspool-scum Republicans are going to do whatever they can to burn the country down.  
  Jordan, Geatz, Greene et al, caliphate of klowns maga'sming at the chaos they create. >
  
  I think Obama had already privately assured creditors that he would continue to pay them - Social security, military salaries, and other social services would be cut first.
  This would be the best approach of several bad options IMO. An actual US default would have deep long term consequences for the global economy. On the other hand, temporarily cutting social spending for a couple months would place enormous pressure on the GOP to act. >
  
  Cut Social Security and watch the shift to a full Democrat house and senate.
  SS needs to be made more solid by increasing the contribution amounts by the rich.  now it's like $180K a year it should be $1 billion on a sliding declining scale with donut holes where some parts are not taxable. >
  
  SS will always be paid out, Republicans just act like it's a business that needs to be balanced but that's not how it works. We should increase taxes on the rich but it wouldn't effect paying out at all. There's no SS fund just holding money for a rainy day. >
  
  The question noone wants to answer... Because it's been covered exhaustively already, you just have to read something other than reddit. >
  
  What would happen if the US always balanced it’s budget and didn’t spend money it doesn’t have? >
  
  You would have austerity governments that repeatedly fail to invest in the countries future and economic growth would slump. >
  
  We need some debt, but much of that money tied up in public debt could be invested more effectively by the private sector to further the country’s future and economic growth. >
  
  That's not it's sole purpose though. And if the private sector was going to do that it would already happen. >
  
  30+ trillion dollars doesn’t give us much wiggle room if there is another war, pandemic, or some other type of calamity. We are in a tight spot and need to rein the spending and let the economy grow to increase revenue. >
  
  
  We are in a tight spot and need to rein the spending and let the economy grow
  
  But if you rein in spending the economy doesn't grow, it stagnates. Austerity doesn't work. >
  
  That is if we assume the only possible option is to continue to spend more than we take in forever.
  What if, and here me out on this, we trimmed spending as a part of an agreement on the debt limit. 
  Wanting to cut spending doesn’t equal financial ruin for the country or the world. Continuing to borrow and print as we are? That is quite destructive in the long term. >
  
  The cost of borrowing will skyrocket, strangling our economy as demand is destroyed by 20% mortgages and 50% credit cards, the entire tax revenue will go to service the National Debt and World commerace will grind to a halt as everyone looks for something to replace the dollar as the universal reserve currency. Republicans will take a victory lap just before The Revolution comes. >
  
  A lot of people love to fear monger on this issue. Is it a bad thing? Absolutely. The WHY you defaulted is massively important though. There is a big difference between missing a payment because of some political reason and missing a payment because you literally can’t afford it. We literally saw this with Russia in the past year. They defaulted on their debt because the United States decided to only accept US dollars while also banning companies from giving Russia US dollars. Did it hurt Russia? Sure. Russia didn’t collapse though. The effects weren’t even all that large because people knew it was a politically caused default. The actual risk of not paying the debt wasn’t there. We’ve defaulted on our debt before. It’s not something to strive for but it’s not going to cause economic collapse either. >
  
  Dude I’m pretty sure defaulting on debt, which would hurt most of the western world to some degree, would be a huge problem especially if it were politically related. Why the hell would Europe, or any country, want to invest money here if there’s a high probability of a default every year due to polarised politics? The fact that’s it’s political and not some catastrophic issue would make me want to be involved even less. >
  
  I mean yea if people dont believe you will pay it that’s a problem. The idea that we would default on our payments while also not addressing the costs is the worst of both worlds and isn’t all that realistic in my opinion. If you already made the country default on their debt then why would you not hold out until you get meaningful concessions on the debt? You already paid the price might as well get the reward. >
  
  Western investors won’t see it that way. Investors want stability with their investments, and having to worry about your investments every couple of years because of political grandstanding isn’t going to attract people. US bonds are one of the safest investments in the world because of its stability. That goes out the window as soon as the US defaults, which immediately destabilizes the global market that revolves around that fact. >
  
  Missing one payment is for more stable than reaching a point of no return that you straight up can’t pay it. That’s kinda the point. One bump in the road doesn’t mean it’s completely unstable. >
  
  This isn’t some short term problem you can just ignore. This is the destabilization of the global economic order. Treasury bonds are a pervasive investment across the global economy that would suddenly become a shaky investment prompting a global recession. This is not a “bite the bullet” moment, this is taking the Great Recession to a whole other level.