# Playing chicken with the debt limit? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070 "2011-02-21T01:07:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/161 "2011-06-26T15:47:57Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > (For the record, our government still hasn’t bothered to enact legislation or regulations that will prevent a recurrence of the Great Recession. Just so ya know.) - “Keep the gummint off’n our backs!”\* ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/162 "2011-06-27T14:39:44Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > As I said [in another related thread I started,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=613692) some thing that said “corporate handlers” will just juggle their investments so they’ll make money off the crash(es), and thus not do anything at all. > > I’m a little skeptical of this, but it’s out there. Not all corporate handlers are hedge fund managers. There are people that have businesses that are innately long the market. Every cyclical business for example. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/163 "2011-06-27T14:57:30Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > I fear the Dems will fold. > That means denying health care coverage to a LOT of seniors. A HELL of a lot. Even the Tea Partiers don’t want anyone touching their Medicare. People even oppose cuts to Medicaid. > > Republicans are already begging for mercy after touching that rail. > > BTW how much money do you expect to save by completely eliminating or privatizing Medicare? I’m not proposing eliminating or privatizing medicare. I’m proposing universal healthcare 2.0 (although completely eliminating medicare would solve a huge chunk of the current fiscal problem and almost entirely resolve our long term fiscal problems, we’d also have to get comfortable with people dying in the streets). We have a health care system that encourages insurance companies to push all your health care cost until you are 65 years old. Preventative care that will only save money if you account for the costs of that preventative care after 65 is often discouraged. We have a health care system that takes the msot profitable part of the health care demographic (working people under 65) and puts taht in the private sector and take the costliest 9retirees over 65) and puts that in the public sector. But even if we did all that, we would still have a problem with medicare. You simply cannot sustain a program (as is) that grows significantly faster than the growth in GDP and shows no signs of slowing down. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/164 "2011-06-27T16:49:57Z")
Late to the game, but how does the debt ceiling limit not violate the 14th Amendment: > [@](#): > > Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. That is, I’m interpreting the “authorized by law” to be that the spending bills passed that cause passing of the debt ceiling is a public debt authorized by law and therefore is valid by this amendment regardless of another law that says the limit is limit on public debt is $12.3 trillion. Of course, the impact of a court battle over this would have consequences but this seems to me to say that congress can’t pass a spending bill and then say they are not going to honor it. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/165 "2011-06-27T19:37:18Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > Late to the game, but how does the debt ceiling limit not violate the 14th Amendment: > > That is, I’m interpreting the “authorized by law” to be that the spending bills passed that cause passing of the debt ceiling is a public debt authorized by law and therefore is valid by this amendment regardless of another law that says the limit is limit on public debt is $12.3 trillion. > > Of course, the impact of a court battle over this would have consequences but this seems to me to say that congress can’t pass a spending bill and then say they are not going to honor it. I heard this very argument on a news/opinion show a couple of days ago, and someone suggested it would provide constitutional grounds for the President to simply ignore the debt ceiling and instruct the Treasury Department to continue borrowing money and paying bills, and let the Supreme Court sort it out. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/166 "2011-06-28T06:40:44Z")
Hrm, I could swear I asked about this (either in this thread or another), and was told that the Constitutional argument was wrong. (I can’t find it now, though, so who knows - I may be misremembering.) Anyway, there are now plenty of stories about how Mitch McConnell is saying there WILL BE NO DEALS unless things are done the Republicans’ way. So… global financial armageddon? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/167 "2011-06-28T06:56:21Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I heard this very argument on a news/opinion show a couple of days ago, and someone suggested it would provide constitutional grounds for the President to simply ignore the debt ceiling and instruct the Treasury Department to continue borrowing money and paying bills, and let the Supreme Court sort it out. That’s what I would do. Keep some really good lawyers around to make the case, announce that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, and dare the Republicans to take it to court. I’m pretty sure that Wall Street wouldn’t help them out with that. Here’s a [good article](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52235.html) by Thomas Geoghegan laying out the case that the US refusing to pay its debt is unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/168 "2011-06-29T01:27:29Z")
No link yet (only read secondhand reports), but there are apparently some noises in the Senate to do just that. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/169 "2011-06-29T04:59:49Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’m not proposing eliminating or privatizing medicare. I’m proposing universal healthcare 2.0 (although completely eliminating medicare would solve a huge chunk of the current fiscal problem and almost entirely resolve our long term fiscal problems, we’d also have to get comfortable with people dying in the streets). We won’t have that at LEAST until the primary demographic that votes Republican loses its majority status in this country. AT LEAST until then. What will we do until that point? > [@](#): > > But even if we did all that, we would still have a problem with medicare. You simply cannot sustain a program (as is) that grows significantly faster than the growth in GDP and shows no signs of slowing down. Nope. So we hit a fatal impasse. We drop Medicare and spark a revolution. Or we stay the course and go bankrupt. Or we dream about universal health care 2.0 which won’t come within the lifetime of MOST people in my age group (40s). It ain’t lookin’ good for those who want to see this country remain solvent. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/170 "2011-06-29T05:06:37Z")
Question about raising it: why can’t Congress raise it to a ridiculoulsy high amount? ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/171 "2011-06-29T05:22:14Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > Question about raising it: why can’t Congress raise it to a ridiculoulsy high amount? Like $14.294 trillion isn’t already? But having limits does afford some advantages i.e. > [@Douglas Adams](#): > > I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/172 "2011-06-29T05:43:31Z")
But if they raise it to, say, $100 trillion, it buys time. Or do they have a set prortion they’re allowed to raise it at a time? ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/173 "2011-06-29T14:41:45Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > Like $14.294 trillion isn’t already? > > But having limits does afford some advantages i.e. And China needs us as an export market. So they’ll keep letting us raise it into perpetuity. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/174 "2011-06-29T15:30:39Z")
The Dems need to work hard to pin responsibility for the economic chaos that not raising the debt limit swould entail on the Republicans. If it become “throw ALL the bastids out!” the Republicans win, or at least, manage a draw. If it’s selective toward Republicans we might get Democratic majorities back in both houses of Congress and Obama re-elected, and in general get a group in who want to govern well, instead of the current batch of idiots (read: Republicans and blue-dog Democrats). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/175 "2011-06-29T18:59:15Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > The Dems need to work hard to pin responsibility for the economic chaos that not raising the debt limit swould entail on the Republicans. If it become “throw ALL the bastids out!” the Republicans win, or at least, manage a draw. If it’s selective toward Republicans we might get Democratic majorities back in both houses of Congress and Obama re-elected, and in general get a group in who want to govern well, instead of the current batch of idiots (read: Republicans and blue-dog Democrats). And how has Obama proven to be any better than a blue dog democrat? Heck at least Blue Dogs campaign as Blue Dogs. Obama folds every time the Republicans raise and we wonder why the Republicans keep raising. What does Obama stand for? What principle, on the table now, would he be willing to lose the white house over? I fear the answer is there is no principle that he wouldn’t be willing to compromise in order to retain the white house. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/176 "2011-06-29T19:46:18Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And how has Obama proven to be any better than a blue dog democrat? > > Heck at least Blue Dogs campaign as Blue Dogs. > > Obama folds every time the Republicans raise and we wonder why the Republicans keep raising. > > What does Obama stand for? > > What principle, on the table now, would he be willing to lose the white house over? I fear the answer is there is no principle that he wouldn’t be willing to compromise in order to retain the white house. Look, even if I were to concede Obama’s lack of principles, and I’m not, he still wins over the Republicans because HE HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING RIDICULOUSLY STUPID. That is a HUGE improvement over Republican governance. Notice, for example, he has not gotten us involved in any unnecessary wars while cutting taxes (and no, Libya is not a war, and we are not exactly heavily invested in it). All Obama has to do is not be an idiot and he is WAAAAAAY ahead of Republican governance. Obama did campaign for health care reform, he was all for single payer which would have lower the expense of the health care system TREMENDOUSLY but the Repubs and the Blue Dogs blocked that. I will admit that Obama is under the control of Wall Street – his Justice Department cannot find anyone to convict other than Madoff, despite the fact that it’s widely known that many major firms broke the law during their last robbery spree. And he has not been able to write any laws that would prevent future robbery sprees by the big finance houses. (The Republicans would of course fight him tooth and nail if he did.) In short, not buying it. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/177 "2011-06-29T20:11:14Z")
At least we know why Eric Cantor wants the debt ceiling to expire: [Eric Cantor is shorting the bond market](http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest): > [@](#): > > Last year the [Wall Street Journal reported](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/18/eric-cantors-investment/) that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively “shorts” long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.) > > According to his latest [financial disclosure statement](http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?CID=N00013131), which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted by Salon this week, Cantor’s office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/178 "2011-06-29T21:40:45Z")
And some say that the President’s press conference today means that the negotiations have basically failed. So are we doomed? Or does this just mean that he is, as some of his supporters have hoped he would, “calling the Republicans’ bluff”? ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/179 "2011-06-30T06:08:34Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > And some say that the President’s press conference today means that the negotiations have basically failed. > > So are we doomed? Or does this just mean that he is, as some of his supporters have hoped he would, “calling the Republicans’ bluff”? Nah. It means chaos may soon ensue. At worst it’ll mean the collapse of a few more banks. At best our currency will devalue dramatically and we’ll be exporting far more than we import. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070/180 "2011-06-30T15:10:59Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > And some say that the President’s press conference today means that the negotiations have basically failed. > > So are we doomed? Or does this just mean that he is, as some of his supporters have hoped he would, “calling the Republicans’ bluff”? Well here’s the situation. The Republicans are trying to use the threat of not raising the debt ceiling to force concessions on entitlements from the Democrats, without giving up anything to them in the form of taxation. Unfortunately, the Republicans are known to have assured their owners on Wall Street that they would never let the US default on its obligations (which is what will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised) since that would leave a lot of major corporations’ stock seriously devalued and make a lot of Wall Street types much poorer, and hence very, very, angry. So the Dems have absolutely no reason to buy the Pubbies’ threats as a valid one. The danger here is that even a cold-blooded act of political theater like this one can easily turn into that most dreaded conflict of all, a dick-measuring contest. Human beings are not rational animals, especially successful male human beings (cite: entire history of the human race). They get used to taking big risks and winning. They roll sevens a lot and eventually get the idea that they are entitled to roll sevens every time they throw the dice. Which is what makes me fearful about this debt-ceiling thing. Somebody is gonna have to back down. Somebody is going to have to accept that, in their mind at least, their dick is smaller than their opponents’ dick. Successful males have a way of not accepting this. Result: kerblam! goes the economy, all because of irrational egos. It shows their power that they can cause this much chaos, you see. I’m hoping that ol’ Sobby-Eyes Boehner’s crying jags are cold-blooded acts of political theater as well, because if those tears are real, and indicators of how he responds emotionally to political events, well, we shall likely be treated to the sight of Sobby Eyes Boehner sobbing over the mess created by the Democrats when they refused to give in to all his demands. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/playing-chicken-with-the-debt-limit/572070.md?page=10)