Earlier this week we asked the following questions of our Bridge Alliance, Coffee Party and Fulcrum communities regarding ripples in the financial sector over concerns with the debt ceiling:
- Now that the country already possesses extensive debt, what is the best approach towards properly balancing budget and spending priorities?
- Is the debt ceiling a practical apparatus by which to assess the national debt in our modern day financial system?
With the “debt crisis” averted for now, many have turned their eyes towards the future of our economy. With the vitality of our current economic system being called into question, there are indeed opportunities for adjustment in order to properly secure the country’s future. And, while many of us would love for fiscal policy to be independent of political ideology, the two are inextricably linked; highlighting some of the dangers present in our highly polarized political puzzle. Regardless, as the saying goes, “victory has 100 fathers, while defeat is an orphan”; the debt ceiling agreement was a win, at least for now. The negotiations that led to the appeasement of debt ceiling constraints were effective. In this case, our elected officials displayed an almost shockingly tactful level of coordination as they compromised their own ideology for the welfare of the American people. I repeat, this is a win, for now.
Many of your thoughts reflected a similar level of tempered optimism. But, as most of us don’t have a degree in finance, the ease with which the average American can denote issues within an economic system often deemed as “complicated”, speaks volumes to the issues that exist. It is fair to say that reports of the proverbial sky falling were a bit overplayed. Regardless, even if the sky is not falling, it may have begun to drizzle. Lawmakers must ensure the roof is tarred and sealed; or we should grab an umbrella just in case.
Here is a sampling of your thoughts. Responses have been edited for length and clarity.
Yes, the debt ceiling is still a practical tool. Anything that can be done to focus the nation's attention on huge annual deficits and rising debt should be considered. However, the latest debt ceiling agreement did very little to reduce deficits and nothing to reduce debt. Both parties continue to kick the can down the road. The 2018 Trump tax cuts cut revenue, while the Biden Administration continues to support increased spending. With rising interest rates, the cost of servicing federal debt continues to rise. - Richard Davies
Debt is not a bad thing, by itself. Whether or not an entity, whether government or individual, has too much dept is a concern but just how much is too much is complicated. Government expenses, or debt, can only be properly understood by looking at things over the long run. - Fred
The debt ceiling is impractical. We are the only country in the world with this exact "debt ceiling" thing that hangs out there as a tempting hostage for either party to take advantage of, depending on which is in power. - Gerry Langeler
We need comprehensive fiscal reform. Taxes must rise and major business exemptions must be trimmed back. Social Security and Medicare must be overhauled. These are major reforms and I don’t know how we will actually accomplish them. - Richard W Sinclair
We need to substantially increase revenue and scale back defense spending. Others may disagree, but those disagreements should be hashed out in the budget process. It’s absurd to either revisit them when deciding whether to pay our debts. - Chris Goelz
Many government outlays are investing, with some reasonable expectation of a predictable positive return. Money for health care, education, environmental protections, etc., is investing for the well-being of individuals and society. Other outlays are speculating, merely assuming that the people who get the funds will use it for productive purposes. This category includes nearly all programs "to create jobs," tax cuts and subsidies to corporations and wealthy individuals. Yet nearly everyone lumps it all together as "spending." Going forward, analyzing government expenditure through these distinctions, we can cut superfluous programs, minimize wealthy tax breaks, etc. - Steven Shafarman
We need a fundamental overhaul of our budgeting process. Congressional reforms made in 1974 have made us significantly less effective when it comes to budgeting. Prior to 1976, the government didn't shut down over funding issues, since then it has shut down 22 times. We need to simplify and reevaluate the role congressional committees play in the budget process, eliminating excess and redundancy. Finally, I think we should spend time and resources evaluating the efficiency of federal programs. We fund many programs that underperform, but we continue funding them because we don't evaluate them based on outcome. The alternative would be to raise taxes. It just isn't sustainable to keep the same amount of income but increase spending levels. Without addressing these structural issues, we will continue to live in this debt limit death spiral. - Hillari Lombard
We need to take a look at the biggest drivers of our debt - defense spending, Medicare, and Social Security spending. Medicare and Social Security can be made solvent with no impact on current beneficiaries and minimal impact on future beneficiaries. We can continue to devote sufficient resources to ensure we have the best military in the world, but we should be able to do that while keeping overall outlays flat. - Allan Cohn
There is nothing wrong with the debt ceiling apparatus itself, it should not be treated as some terrible financial catastrophe. Rather, it could be used to force the kind of fiscal restraint that is necessary to address the outstanding debt problem. - David Butler
The only good the debt ceiling accomplishes is to compel periodic, transitory and superficial attention to the consequences of years of irresponsible neglect by all American stakeholders, especially the voters and their representatives. - Bernard Sucher
The debt ceiling is an obsolete mechanism and should be eliminated through legislation. - Bob Meyer
Any financial or economic system is made possible by government policies and infrastructure (upholding contracts, the court system, regulatory mechanisms, etc.). The debt ceiling is one more policy that has created the existing system. It does appear to be a very effective tool for certain political goals that align, broadly, with the goals of the financial system, with some risk attached. - Daniel Pritchard
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.