Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: What you should know about the debt ceiling
Explainer: What you should know about the debt ceiling
Dec 16, 2025 11:19 PM

What just happened?

In two tweets posted earlier today,President Trump attacked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan for not tying an increase in the debt limit to a recent Veterans Affairs bill that passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. (The bill likely would have been delayed, though, if it had been tied tothe debt limit.)

Congress must vote on whether to raise America’s borrowing limit and keep the government funded within the next month. Failure to do so could lead to a government shutdown. President Trump said on Tuesday he was willing to shut down the government to get funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.

What is the debt limit or debt ceiling?

In most years the federal government brings in less revenue than it spends. To cover this difference, the Treasury Department has to issue government bonds which increases the national debt. The debt limit is legislative restriction on the total amount of national debt the Treasury is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations.

What is the current debt limit?

The current statutory limit on total debt issued by the Treasury is$19.809 trillion.

Shouldn’t we want Congress to refuses to raise the debt ceiling since it will lower our national debt?

The debt ceiling does not lower the national debt. The legal obligation to pay the debt has already been incurred by the government so the money is already owed. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling merely prevents the Treasury Department from borrowing money to pay the government’s bills.

When will the government run out of money to pay its bills?

The current estimate is October 2, 2017.

What happens when the government doesn’t have money to pay its bills?

As Brad Plumer explains, “The most straightforward scenario is that the puter systems would keep making payments until its checks started bouncing. And its hard to predict in advance who would get stiffed.”

Every day the Treasury Department receives more than 2 million invoices from various agencies. The Department of Labor might say, for example, that it owes a contractor $1 million to fix up a building in Denver. The puters make sure the figures are correct and then authorize the payment. This is all done automatically, dozens of times per second.

According to the Treasury Department’s inspector general, puters are designed to “make each payment in the order es due.” So if the money isn’t there, the defaults could be random.

What happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised and Treasury can’t pay the government’s bill?

The result is that the government will default on its payments, that is, people owned money by government stop getting paid. Each month the government only brings in about 80 percent of the revenues needed to pay the bills. Some people would get paid but others would not, which could cause Americans and the rest of the world to wonder if the U.S. is serious about meeting its financial obligations. That could precipitate a global financial crisis

If the consequences are so dire, why doesn’t Congress just raise the debt ceiling already?

In a word, politics. As Kevin Hassett and Abby McCloskey of AEI note, Congresses run by both parties have used the borrowing limit as political leverage with a president. All told, congressional Democrats have been responsible for 60 percent of the increases when the debt limit was raised alongside other legislative items. Republicans were responsible for 15 percent. The remaining 25 percent occurred during divided Congresses. Of the Democratic dirties, six occurred when Democrats also controlled the White House, and 10 occurred when a Republican controlled the White House. For Republicans, all four occurred while a Democrat held the presidency.

Why do we even have a debt ceiling?

The United States has had some sort of legislative restriction on debt since 1917. But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires it and it makes little sense for Congress to separately authorize borrowing for spending that Congress has already approved. While many economists and politicians have suggested eliminating the debt limit requirement, no serious proposal to remove it is being considered. It likely won’t be as long as it can be used as a political tool.

Will we actually default on our debt?

Probably not. McConnell said on Monday,”There is zero chance—no chance—we won’t raise the debt ceiling.” Congress and the President will e to some agreement. Both the spending and debt ceiling bills can pass the Republican-led House of Representatives by a simple majority vote, but will need 60 votes to pass the Senate. Republicans only hold 52 of 100 seats, so they will need at least 8 Democratic Senators to support the measure.

Back in 1979, the government inadvertently defaulted on about $122 million worth of Treasury bills, and while the error was quickly fixed, the incident raised the nation’s borrowing costs by about 0.6 percent, or $12 billion. Most members of Congress recognize that if a minor default could have such devastating consequences, the affect of a real default could be catastrophic.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
The Lasting and Creative Consequences of Daily Work
Over at The Gospel Coalition, Elise Amyx of IFWE offers encouragement to those who may feel their work is useless: Though some work may seem useless, Christians understand that all work is God’s work. Our work only seems insignificant because we fail to grasp the big picture. This is what economists refer to as the “knowledge problem.” The knowledge problem means we can’t always see the big picture because knowledge is dispersed among many people; no one person knows everything....
Why a ‘Living Wage’ Can Hurt the Poor
Near the top of my long and ever-growing list of pet peeves is articles titled, “The Conservative Case for [Insert Proposal Usually Rejected by Conservatives Here].” It’s almost an iron-clad rule that before you even read the article you can be assured of that the case being made will use words that appeal to conservatives while being based on principles that are contrary to conservatism and/or reality. Take, for example, a recent op-ed in the New Statesman by British Conservative...
Much Ado About A ‘Transformationalist’ Nothing
What do Doug Wilson, William Evans, and I have mon? We’re all puzzled by the intramural attention D.G. Hart and Carl Trueman are paying to Tim Keller, Abraham Kuyper, and the “problem” of “transformationalism.” Trueman links Hart while raising concerns: I was struck by [Hart’s] account of Abraham Kuyper. Here was a (probable) genius and (definite) workaholic who had at his personal disposal a university, a newspaper and a denomination, and also held the highest political office in his land....
Obamacare Reset: A Free Market Vision for Health Care Reform
“We are now three years into health care ‘reform’ and it is crystal clear that what we have is no reform at all,” says Dr. Nick Pandelidis in this week’s Acton Commentary. “As we are seeing, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as is typical of so many government program names, will result in just the opposite e. PPACA is unaffordable, it will harm patients, and it will do incalculable damage to human dignity.” The full text of his...
Creativity Vs. Productivity
We need both of course. But do we Americans put too much emphasis on productivity? And is it hurting us? Jeff DeGraff, professor at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, thinks this might just be the case. It seems that industrialized country like the U.S. and Germany put great value on productivity, but not so much on creativity, and it may be costing us. The alarm that we are trading our creativity for productivity has been sounded for...
Do Rights Protect Autonomy or Duties?
Our right to religious freedom is best grounded in the universal duty to seek ultimate truth, says Joshua Schulz, and not in human autonomy. Here e to the fundamental paradox of modern liberalism. On the one hand, liberalism in all its stages has always treated human freedom as sacred. On the other hand, modern liberals also believe that in order to guarantee their freedom, they canin practiceuse the state’s coercive power pel others to do whattheybelieve is wrong. This is...
Noble Work Versus Savage Welfare
In eleven states in the union, welfare pays more than the average pretax first-year wage for a teacher. In thirty-nines states, it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the three most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an puter programmer. Those are just some of the eye-opening and distressing findings in a new study by Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes of the Cato Institute on the “work versus welfare...
Prudent Stewardship and the Cappadocian Fathers
St. Basil the Great Today at Ethika Politika, I examine a few rules of prudent stewardship that follow from the teachings of the Cappadocian fathers on poverty, almsgiving, and fasting. One of the great challenges in this area today is how best to live outin our present context the statement of St. Basil the Great that “the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute.” In particular, I highlight these three guidelines to help guide prudent practices: [W]e must be...
The Problem of ‘Giving Back to the Community’
A recent ad on our munity radio station here in Boise spoke of a business sponsor’s practice of “giving back to munity.” This is done, of course, by sponsoring the radio station and other similar causes. As a fan of the station in question, I’m grateful for such local sponsors, and I’m grateful that they give to munity in that way. There is, however, a problem – not with the practice, but with the way we describe it. The phrase...
The Politics of Civil Society
At the Washington Examiner, Timothy Carney writes (HT: The Transom), “When liberals talk munity, conservatives are too quick to raise the Gadsden Flag and shout, ‘Leave me alone!'” He goes on to examine “the reactions to catchphrases made famous by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — ‘You didn’t build that’ and ‘It takes a village.'” Despite the negative reaction from many conservatives, says Carney, Obama’s statement in its full context, ‘you didn’t build that’ is true. Obama’s line began this...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved