PDA

View Full Version : Moody's: Elminate the Debt Ceiling



Kithus
07-19-2011, 11:18 AM
Ratings agency Moody's on Monday suggested the United States should eliminate its statutory limit on government debt to reduce uncertainty among bond holders.

The United States is one of the few countries where Congress sets a ceiling on government debt, which creates "periodic uncertainty" over the government's ability to meet its obligations, Moody's said in a report.

"We would reduce our assessment of event risk if the government changed its framework for managing government debt to lessen or eliminate that uncertainty," Moody's analyst Steven Hess wrote in the report.

The agency last week warned it would cut the United States' AAA credit rating if the government misses debt payments, increasing pressure on Republicans and the White House to come up with a budget agreement.

Moody's said it had always considered the risk of a U.S. debt default very low because Congress has regularly raised the debt ceiling during many decades, usually without controversy.

However, the current wide divisions between the House of Representatives and the Obama administration over the debt limit creates a high level of uncertainty and causes us to raise our assessment of event risk," Hess said.

Stepping further into the heated political debate about U.S. debt problems, Moody's suggested the government could look at other ways to limit debt.

It cited Chile, widely praised as Latin America's most fiscally-sound country, as an example.

"Elsewhere, the level of deficits is constrained by a 'fiscal rule,' which means the rise in debt is constrained though not technically limited," Moody's said, adding that such rule has been effective in Chile.

It also cited the example of the Maastricht criteria in Europe, which determines that the ratio of government debt to GDP should not exceed 60 percent. It noted, however, that such a rule is often breached by the governments.

In the United States, Moody's said the debt limit had not effectively curbed the rise in government debt because lawmakers regularly raise it and because that limit is not related to the level of expenditures approved by Congress.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-usa-debt-moodys-idUSTRE76H0WH20110718


Perhaps it's time to stop having what boils down to a symbolic argument and only serves to create uncertainty in the markets. Remove the debt ceiling and if the members of Congress wish to reduce or elminate the national debt they can do it when they decide how much we're going to spend each year int he first place.

Jayvn
07-19-2011, 12:12 PM
because when you give your teenager a credit card with a 250 dollar limit and they max it out, you should go ahead and give them a platinum card so they aren't maxed out anymore...

Cephalopod
07-19-2011, 12:19 PM
because when you give your teenager a credit card with a 250 dollar limit and they max it out, you should go ahead and give them a platinum card so they aren't maxed out anymore...

I hate this retarded analogy. Credit card limits are nothing like the debt ceiling, and people have this bizarre notion that they're similar.



But this is not the same as a credit card limit, a frequently used analogy. A credit card limit prevents someone from making more purchases. You may want to buy that $1,000 refrigerator but if you only have $500 left on your credit card, tough luck—unless you round up some cash.

In this case, Congress has already authorized the expenditures for fiscal year 2011. In many cases, the products, so to speak, have already been purchased, and now the bills are coming due. If the United States government does not pay for these items (which includes interest on the national debt), then it goes in default.

We have had trouble coming up with a real-life equivalent, but here’s stab at it. Suppose the son of a millionaire was told he could spend $100,000 in a year, and not only that, but he was told exactly how he needed to spend the money. (That’s the fiscal year appropriations bills passed by Congress.). At the same time, the parent told the son the bills would not be paid after a certain date unless he got additional permission to pay them. (That’s the debt limit.)

In other words, the money has been spent, but an arbitrary ceiling has been set for how much can be paid. If it doesn’t make much sense, it is not supposed to. But it is the exact opposite of a credit card limit or any such similar analogy.


And another snippet, from the GAO:


“The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred. While debates surrounding the debt limit may raise awareness about the federal government's current debt trajectory and may also provide Congress with an opportunity to debate the fiscal policy decisions driving that trajectory, the ability to have an immediate effect on debt levels is limited.”

Kuyuk
07-19-2011, 12:51 PM
I still think we need to tell some other countries to go fuck themselves over our debt.

Latrinsorm
07-19-2011, 01:49 PM
Moody's said it had always considered the risk of a U.S. debt default very low because Congress has regularly raised the debt ceiling during many decades, usually without controversy.You mean when the President wasn't from HAWAII. Contiguousists, the lot of them.

Androidpk
07-19-2011, 02:04 PM
I still think we need to tell some other countries to go fuck themselves over our debt.

Why? You don't seriously think there wouldn't be any repercussions do you?

Kuyuk
07-19-2011, 02:12 PM
Why? You don't seriously think there wouldn't be any repercussions do you?

Well, I think the reason for some of the debt is BS anyway.

During war, we destroy shit, why should we then go into debt afterward to rebuild it?

Tgo01
07-19-2011, 02:20 PM
Well, I think the reason for some of the debt is BS anyway.

During war, we destroy shit, why should we then go into debt afterward to rebuild it?

Because it's easier to maintain an alliance with the new government you installed if you rebuild the shit you destroy. That's usually the goal of modern US wars anyways.

Showal
07-19-2011, 02:29 PM
Well, I think the reason for some of the debt is BS anyway.

During war, we destroy shit, why should we then go into debt afterward to rebuild it?

I think a better question is why do we go into wars to destroy shit when we know we can't afford the war, nevermind afford to rebuild what we destroy afterwards.

Also, we should assist in the rebuilding effort after we destroy a place. Why? Because our public intentions of the wars we're currently in, and have been in, are not to destroy the infrastructure of a country who probably could never afford to repair it which could devastate daily life for the public for the forseeable future. Our intentions are usually to help the population of that country and to bring down governments.

That's at least the perception our government wants the outside world to believe.