Nuclear option this time around?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Congress may change that at any time.

Yes. And the Constitution is the highest law in the land and since it demands that public debt be taken care of there is no choice but to do so. I.e., it must be given priority.

Also, because we have a (partial) shutdown we're not incurring those bills.

I see no reason for all this dishonesty in an attempt to make the situation appear more than it actually is. Abruptly cutting this level of spending is, on its own, sufficiently disruptive. There is no need to exaggerate it as a default on public debt.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,013
55,456
136
Yes. And the Constitution is the highest law in the land and since it demands that public debt be taken care of there is no choice but to do so. I.e., it must be given priority.

Also, because we have a (partial) shutdown we're not incurring those bills.

I see no reason for all this dishonesty in an attempt to make the situation appear more than it actually is. Abruptly cutting this level of spending is, on its own, sufficiently disruptive. There is no need to exaggerate it as a default on public debt.

Fern

Now you're resorting to telling people they are lying when you can't answer their arguments.

Every federal expenditure comes from the authority of a federal statute that is on EXACTLY the same footing as the statute that limits the amount of US debt. The debt ceiling is not some magical super-statute that takes precedence. If one bill's expenditures are going to make the US unable to pay the interest on the debt at the same time the debt ceiling bill will not allow the US to take out bonds to pay the debt, both are in violation of the 14th amendment.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that not enforcing spending statutes had to come before not enforcing the debt ceiling. Can you explain?
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
Most likely Obama will show up at 30 minutes before midnight on the 16th with a representative of the Franklin Mint next to him (holding a suitcase with 4 collectable Franklin mint commemorative Obama coins valued 1 trillion each). Along side of him will be the treasury secretary Jack Lew.
On the other side of the aisle will be FED reserve chairperson Janet Yellen holding a special Zero Halliburton containing a VSAT terminal.

Franklin mint dude hands Jack the case, he pops open the case and shows Janet the shiny coins, she inspects them with a loupe and says, deal. Janet will pop open her case, key in some information and seconds later the US has 4 trillion dollars in its Coffers.

Problem solved, velocity of money skyrockets, slight inflation, markets jump and the economy improves. nice Hollywood ending.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Yes. And the Constitution is the highest law in the land and since it demands that public debt be taken care of there is no choice but to do so. I.e., it must be given priority.

Also, because we have a (partial) shutdown we're not incurring those bills.

I see no reason for all this dishonesty in an attempt to make the situation appear more than it actually is. Abruptly cutting this level of spending is, on its own, sufficiently disruptive. There is no need to exaggerate it as a default on public debt.

Fern

And then what happens after the 16th of October?

Spell it out for us.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Nuclear option yes please. While Congress is in session and while the president is in the White House.

The White House and Capitol building are close enough that you can go pretty low yield so as to contain the fallout to DC.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I'm starting to think this may be the best move for Obama. Cite the 14th to ignore the debt ceiling and continue to pay all our bills. Let America know in blunt terms why it's necessary, how it's still going to cause some damage, and how that damage is less than the Republican-extorted alternatives. Let the Republicans file suit and the courts do their thing for a few years. In the meantime, we've largely disarmed the children in the House who put their irresponsible, extreme ideology over the best interests of America. They can still stomp their feet and hold their breath, but they will no longer be able to hold the world's economy hostage.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I'm starting to think this may be the best move for Obama. Cite the 14th to ignore the debt ceiling and continue to pay all our bills. Let America know in blunt terms why it's necessary, how it's still going to cause some damage, and how that damage is less than the Republican-extorted alternatives. Let the Republicans file suit and the courts do their thing for a few years. In the meantime, we've largely disarmed the children in the House who put their irresponsible, extreme ideology over the best interests of America. They can still stomp their feet and hold their breath, but they will no longer be able to hold the world's economy hostage.

OTOH, The Teahadists badly need to be beaten into a state of reasonableness by an instrument of their own creation, and a full shutdown of the govt is the only thing available to do that.

Many of them actually represent rather impecunious districts where lots of people depend on the Govt. Let 'em deal with their constituencies when it looks like the SS checks aren't coming & Medicare bills aren't getting paid, along with nearly every swinging dick of a govt employee who isn't getting paid.

Take Colorado's Teahad Central, Colorado Springs, where 19% of employment is with the Federal govt & the place is overrun with govt retirees, too.

They'll choke on the whole thing rather quickly, which is what they richly deserve.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
OTOH, The Teahadists badly need to be beaten into a state of reasonableness by an instrument of their own creation, and a full shutdown of the govt is the only thing available to do that.

Many of them actually represent rather impecunious districts where lots of people depend on the Govt. Let 'em deal with their constituencies when it looks like the SS checks aren't coming & Medicare bills aren't getting paid, along with nearly every swinging dick of a govt employee who isn't getting paid.

Take Colorado's Teahad Central, Colorado Springs, where 19% of employment is with the Federal govt & the place is overrun with govt retirees, too.

They'll choke on the whole thing rather quickly, which is what they richly deserve.
True, but at what cost? My concern is that America's prosperity today is in great part due to inertia. Investors continue to buy our debt (and therefore reinforce our economy) because America has always been a really safe investment. What happens when that faith is shaken? How much will doubt inflate our interest rates and undermine our standing as the premier place to invest? When the world's deepest pockets get accustomed to investing elsewhere, will we ever restore our standing and get their money back? The ripples from such a fiasco may haunt us for generations.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
OTOH, The Teahadists badly need to be beaten into a state of reasonableness by an instrument of their own creation, and a full shutdown of the govt is the only thing available to do that.

Two separate losses, with one completely disabling one of their petulant hissy fits, is probably better than one singular major engagement with massive losses. Remember, if they take down the country they've validated that their terrorism works. They may take a loss at the polls but remember who their constituency is. The uneducated, self-entitled white Christian minority isn't going away, and the Teahadists perfectly represent their platform of, "Me me me me me me." In a few years they'd be right back, pulling the same tricks, with the same backing by their Taliban constituents to do whatever is needed to enforce their religion.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
There won't be a default. It would be absolute political suicide for the GOP, and they've fallen on their blade enough in recent times.

Terrorist wont fly planes into buildings. It would be absolute suicide for Qaeda.
And they've fallen on their blade enough in recent times.

Brought to you by "Famous Last Words Inc".
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/michael-snyder/12-ominous-warnings-about-a-us-debt-default%E2%80%A8/

I really think and hope that there will be a hard default with the U.S. mint closing down forever and never replaced with another legislated monopoly... and that's coming from a man who warned his own parents about this more than two years ago and accordingly advised them to get some commodities like rental property, oil, gold, and silver, but they haven't listened because they think they'd lose more money doing it by having to pay taxes to take it out of my dad's 401k. Even though my dad would lose possibly all of his savings (and I even expect to get robbed and murdered), I'd rather that happen than for future generations to be indebted and deprived of liberty by the mistakes made by the present generation.

I don't remember whether the article I linked to above said that the vast majority of people identifying as Republicans favor a default, but that's also another reason why it will probably happen.

The final reason as to why I think it won't go like it did in '96 is because Obama is the most hard nosed president since Andrew Jackson and doesn't care about others like Clinton did and Boehner is nowhere near as creative as Newt Gingrich was. Boehner at least cares about his party, Obama really only cares about himself.

One thing I love about Dr. Paul was that he was right when he was stubborn and he the best interests of the people at heart. Obama is wrong when he's stubborn and he only cares about himself. Romney, no matter how terrible his policies would've been and no matter how much he didn't understand, he DID care more about the people than Obama did... that was clear when he said things like "we have to control the free market", when he would flip flop on an interpersonal, caring level, and when he emotionally said that he would build the pipeline himself if he had to in order to create jobs.

Obama wasn't bothered that fewer people expressly consented to him in '12 than in '08, as long as he kept executive power. But he didn't even care about people in '08; you know that because when girls were kissing him (they were white as my grandfather quite angrily pointed out as a Neanderthal from the Jim Crow South even though Obama's just as white as my grandfather on their matrilineage), he didn't kiss them back... the only correct conclusion that can be made about Obama's personality is that he's a hard-nosed, self-centered, anti-social asshole.
 
Last edited:

kia75

Senior member
Oct 30, 2005
468
0
71
Most likely Obama will show up at 30 minutes before midnight on the 16th with a representative of the Franklin Mint next to him (holding a suitcase with 4 collectable Franklin mint commemorative Obama coins valued 1 trillion each). Along side of him will be the treasury secretary Jack Lew.
On the other side of the aisle will be FED reserve chairperson Janet Yellen holding a special Zero Halliburton containing a VSAT terminal.

Franklin mint dude hands Jack the case, he pops open the case and shows Janet the shiny coins, she inspects them with a loupe and says, deal. Janet will pop open her case, key in some information and seconds later the US has 4 trillion dollars in its Coffers.

Problem solved, velocity of money skyrockets, slight inflation, markets jump and the economy improves. nice Hollywood ending.


This would be my suggestion for handling the Debt Ceiling, but it's not without its issues. The first is that with a Fiat currency (like the US DOllar), a dollar is worth only what people think it's worth. Creating 4 Trillion dollars out of nothing really isn't a big deal, but if people (like the Tea Party) think it's a big deal then it could tank our currency. Also, Losing our AAA rating, The Stock Market Crashing, and other things not having to do with minting platinum coins could be interpreted as being caused by the mint, even though they're caused by coming close to default. The best way to do a Trillion dollar platinum coin is to announce it in advanced (so there's no shock to the system) and make certain the rating agencies and everybody is fine with it. Last minute shinnanigans do nothing.




That's the problem with the debt ceiling solutions that don't involve congress. They're untested and unpredictable. The best solution is just to have congress raise the debt ceiling.