@potus #Biden needs to just IGNORE THE #DebtCeiling AND let the Treasure just continue to raise money to pay our debts (incurred by the GOP.)
If it goes to the #SCotUS, even THIS SC can't deny the #14thAmendment. #MeetThePress
@MugsysRapSheet @potus you@do realize that Roe v Wade which was just overturned was an argument largely based on the 14th amendment, yes? This #SCOTUS can ignore anything that doesn’t suit them.
@MugsysRapSheet @potus of note, this likely the most famous 3A court decision I can think of which ironically wasn’t about privacy but about housing the national guard, making it very similar to its originally written and understood context despite our modern interpretations of the 3A.
Wow, you two are both pretty far off in crazyville, but fortunately it really doesn't matter since the Treasury will be bringing in enough revenue to service its debts, so the president merely needs to follow the law and pay them out of what they Treasury is bringing in.
It has nothing to do with abortion or SCOTUS. That is getting really off point.
The Treasury will have the money to pay the debts, so it has to, and it is just ridiculous that we are putting up with a president threatening not to.
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @potus oh well I guess there’s nothing to worry about then. All sorted.
It should be all sorted, but no, we have a president threatening not to pay, and that's causing quite a lot of trouble.
This should be a matter of certainty. We should be able to rely on those payments, as per the 14th, but no, there is now uncertainty as to whether the president will follow through on his threats unless he gets his way.
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @potus I’m not sure how it’s Biden’s fault when the congress is just as much at fault. In my mind that makes it a 50/50 problem, with the deciding point going to “I won’t pay the bills we already accumulated unless we do something else.”
So, yeah, I guess I don’t get your argument.
Well the case of that is understanding that the federal government doesn't incur debts all on a single day.
Every single day throughout the year the federal government buys things, and bills are created by that buying process that happens on a daily basis.
There has been a lot of misinformation based on the idea that the federal government creates bills all at once, but that's just not how it works.
So these bills have not yet been accumulated. It's not a question of I won't pay the bills we have already accumulated, because those bills don't actually exist yet.
Unfortunately the administration is trying to accumulate power based on that claim, and we really need to call them out on it being just plain false.
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @potus I’m not confused by or about that, didn’t mention it, it doesn’t play a factor in my argument here, or in much of the debate, and I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up.
The US operates at a yearly deficit and has incurred debt. Whether it’s $31 million or $31 trillion (it’s the latter) there comes a point at which outgoing committed funds reach the amount of liquidity we possess.
1/
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @potus We have the ability to borrow more, to service the debt we’ve already accumulated. If the House gets its way, we will have to agree to an unrelated set of terms (future spending) to service our existing debt (“bills”) which we’ve already accumulated.
If you’re using your credit card too much it’s an important step to consider that usage; it’s insanely stupid to not pay your mortgage to teach yourself that lesson.
2/
Keep in mind that according to the Treasury it has enough money to service its debt. That's what they say in their monthly statements. They don't need to borrow more in order to service their debt, again by their own words.
So this has absolutely nothing to do with servicing existing debts, since according to the Treasury they have enough money to service their existing debts.
I just want to restate that: Biden's own Treasury reports that it has enough money to service the existing debts.
Yes, politicians are being misleading about this subject. They are lying to us. As politicians do when they seek more power.
Anyway, yeah we absolutely have to call these people out on what they are doing. If Biden wants more power to borrow money against the US population then he needs to work with Congress to get it.
For example, check out page four, I believe, to see how much more the Treasury has coming in compared to how much it needs to spend servicing its debts.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0423.pdf
@volkris either we’re not talking about the same thing, due perhaps to your vague reference to “page four, [you believe]” (it’s almost like they numbered the tables for a reason in a document that has no page numbers…), or you’ve misunderstood your reference entirely.
@josh @volkris @potus
As I said, don't waste your time. "Page 4" refers to a link he sent me. He thinks it proves his point. It doesn't. It's a diagram of ANNUAL tax revenue. You can't spend *tomorrow's* revenue before you get it… except on credit... aka "Debt".
That money that he's spending that hasn't come in yet has to come from SOMEWHERE. They can't simply print money. They would have to RAISE it, which would require lifting the #DebtCeiling. 🤦♂️
If you check out the report there's no mystery to this: Yes the money has to come from somewhere and this report lays out exactly where it comes from, the Treasury says that the money mostly comes from tax receipts, and those tax receipts are more than enough to service the debt.
Also, no, raising the debt limit is the opposite of printing more money. If Congress were to authorize it the Treasury could print money instead of raising the debt. You have that backwards too.
@volkris Couldn't agree more... there is *no* *mystery*. Here is a snip of "page 4." It shows CUMULATIVE in/out for this year (I'm in 2023, dunno about you) through April (it's now May).
By EOM April, we have almost a trillion dollar deficit. $925 Billion.
Please tell me more about your "professional expertise so that I can be absolutely sure to kindly avoid you in all personal and professional matters concerning finance.
@MugsysRapSheet @potus
@volkris I guess if you have genuine questions keep 'em coming; otherwise I'm just going to consider that I won the argument, and that you successfully trolled the shit outta me (god I hope that's the case).
Well this is social media. You can consider whatever the hell you want to.
But if you want to approach the real world, as you can see from the treasury departments report, as it says, it has plenty of money to service it's debts.
What you do with that is up to you. None of my business whether you want to promote the political spin of the party currently in power.
Ha! Sounds like you are saying that you don't want to be casually referred to the information that disproves whatever it is you believe.
Just because it's easy to debunk what you've been told, well, why should that stand in the way?
@volkris I think you’ve misunderstood yourself. I’m not debunking what I’ve been told. I’m debunking what you’re telling me by using your own references.
Quick question: could you casually here, on mastodon, describe what’s in the graph I snipped of your famous “page four” to a theoretical anyman on the street?
You don't think it's kind of silly the phrase you've misunderstood yourself?
You don't see any irony in that?
@volkris I don’t think the phrase is silly, no, because I’m clever enough to realize it represents a case where someone’s claim is debunked by the very page they keep referring to.
Hey @MugsysRapSheet, I do believe this guy might just be an idiot…
So you can see on the left hand side the treasury reporting $1.4 trillion in tax receipts alone, while on the right hand side it's spent less than $400 billion servicing the debt.
$1.4 trillion is a whole lot more than the $400 billion It took to pay those debts.
Treasury has the money.
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @potus show me; take a screen shot and circle or highlight.
Sure I will circle on top of your image from before, circling in blue even just tax receipts versus interest paid in servicing the debt.
@MugsysRapSheet @volkris @potus sort of. We’re splitting hairs, and that’s fine, I can go there. We’ll need to agree that servicing debt, technically, means both the interest and principal repayment for any given repayment period.
The point @volkris seems to be arguing is that we could pay the debt service for a period of time after the ceiling is reached. I’ll concede this is true on the basis that it’s mutually conceded as irrelevant.
1/
@MugsysRapSheet @volkris @potus what’s more, @volkris seems to be assuming by way of their strict definition that “default” refers strictly to debt servicing.
If the US becomes unable to pay enough of its bills and defaults on ANY significant portion of its creditors, whether for loan servicing reasons or otherwise, the global markets will downgrade our rating (again) and any lender or creditor can declare that we are in default.
3/
@MugsysRapSheet @volkris @potus I will however push back because @volkris cannot possibly know for how long this is possible, because there are thousands of laws that govern the order in which payments out of the treasury have to be made, and emergency authorizations and conditions which affect the outcome of payments in the event of hitting the debt ceiling.
2/
@MugsysRapSheet since your original post was about PAYING OUR DEBTS and hitting the ceiling and the resulting default clearly speaks to Treasury outlays and commitments, @volkris is either introducing a tangent, bullshit unrelated argument into the original conversation, or doesn’t know the difference, or both; also trolling. @potus
4/4
I'm just pointing out that according to the Treasury, the Treasury has plenty of revenue with which to service its debts and avoid default.
Make of that what you will.
*I* would be calling politicians out for lying to the public, but whatever.
@MugsysRapSheet @potus
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @potus it seems your argument is that they’re lying because technically they could stop paying all other obligations and just pay Net Interest, and you take no stock in servicing the debt referring to anything besides that category.
Since you keep repeating “plenty,” how long do you estimate before those “lies” become truth?
1/
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @potus Are you factoring in cash on hand? Bonds and TBills coming due? Cool with not paying to keep any of the government open, paying the military, social security?
You’re insisting “plenty”. How long is that?
2/2
How long? Ongoing. The Treasury brings in so much revenue through taxation, not even counting other revenue sources, that it will have enough to service its debts for the foreseeable future.
The rest of it is between the president and the Congress. But the Constitution is clear that these debts must be paid, and they can be paid, so unless Biden wants to be impeached, he must pay them.
@volkris I get that you’re going to ignore all the other points I made so let me just ask, do you not hear how reductive and fascicle your argument is?
What if he doesn’t pay loan servicing first because he pays out last Pennie’s to the service men, of whom he is also obligated. Is he a liar then? Can’t pay to service the debt.
You also haven’t answered my question as to how long is “plenty” but I get dodging is your thing. @MugsysRapSheet @potus
The Treasury reports suggest that they are generally taking in around three times the revenue that would be needed to service the debt. Does that answer your question as to what plenty means? I don't know why you are so concerned with that, but yeah, it's not even close.
The president is constitutionally obligated to pay this debt service, as per the 14th Amendment. If he doesn't pay it, then he should be impeached as he is actively choosing to violate the Constitution in a really serious way.
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @potus the ability for you to misunderstand the spirit or discussion or the letter of the law is staggering.
I am glad that you seem to feel well equipped in the political dealings on the table and I wish you good luck. 👍
Same!
I wish you well, and I hope sometime that you might develop in your mathematical skills and understanding of federal budgeting practices!
@volkris Shit, I don't care if you keep calling me a bootlicker in what you think is a DM but isn't off this thread.
You have a duty to refer me to chapter and verse in the report which you provided, to specific sections which supports the claim you're making that "we have the money without raising the debt ceiling." No hyperbole, no vagueries.
If you say anything else, that's wrong. Shit I don't even wanna hear you clear your throat. Now get on with it please.
Oh no I am happy to publicly say it sounds like you are a bootlicker based on what I understand that term to mean, somebody who is really trying hard to support authoritarian efforts.
And based on what you are saying, you are trying hard to support authoritarian efforts.
So yeah, maybe I'm wrong, maybe boot licking isn't supporting authoritarian efforts the way you are, but it is worth a shot. I think it is. Maybe I'm wrong. But for goodness sake stop bootlicking.
@volkris @MugsysRapSheet @potus ladies and gentlemen, this bootlicker authoritarian-lover presents to you the very definition of irony…
@volkris stop insisting that you're right and describe WHY. DO NOT, under any circumstances, casually refer me to the document. Do me the same courtesy I did you. You may recall that earlier I read your document for you and then helped you understand it.
This is not a popularity contest for government, it's literally a discussion about reality. I can think the government is doing a shit job and still tell you that you can't tell a financial report from a flyswatter.
@MugsysRapSheet @potus