More incorrect claims by Dems about consequences of not immediately increasing debt limit

If the debt limit isn't increased, for that period of time the Federal government will only be able to spend about $2.2 trillion at an annual rate. How is this so bad? Surely they can cover the interest payments and almost all the nondiscretionary government spending. Hitting the limit simply means no new borrowing until the limit is increased. An example of an extreme statement:

“Congress will not permit the nation to default on its obligations because it would be beyond irresponsible to do so,” said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), in a statement to POLITICO. “Leader Cantor knows this, and should heed the many business leaders who are telling Republicans to stop playing games with the debt ceiling to gain political leverage.” . . .

UPDATE: At least some in Congress have gotten the message.

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) believes the dangers of not raising the debt ceiling are being “overstated,” noting that Congress has failed to raise the limit before and “Armageddon didn’t hit.”

“Three or four times over the course of the last 20 years Congress has voted not to raise the debt ceiling, and it’s taken a few months and then they’ve come together and they’ve raised it,” the tea party favorite said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

"But over the course of those few months, when the debt ceiling wasn’t raised, Armageddon didn’t hit, the government paid its bills . . ."