# What are the odds that the U.S. will default? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 29, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903 "2013-09-29T04:24:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/141 "2013-10-01T20:30:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > and how Democratic candidates for the House actually got a million more votes than Republican candidates (guess you like that gerrymandering!)… Damn, I forgot about this. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/142 "2013-10-02T00:11:54Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > They hold a decisive majority in the House. According to what I read in the Washington Post, if there was a free vote in the House, a clean continuing resolution would win. I’m pretty sure that this the vote for a clean debt ceiling limit increase would be even greater. But the way things are set up there, a bare majority of a party that has a bare majority is enough to stop legislation from going to the floor. As for Barack Obama’s 2006 vote against a debt ceiling increase, he was wrong. It was a protest vote without practical significance, but it is wrong to vote for something you don’t favor and would cause considerable suffering. I voted for Barack Obama twice, but I see no reason to defend his 2006 vote. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/143 "2013-10-02T00:36:25Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Let me answer your hyperbole with another: > > … and if Republicans give in right now, they will be utterly humiliated and irrelevant FOREVER. That’s exactly the problem, and that’s what makes the Republicans so reprehensible. Thomas Schelling describes this situation [perfectly](http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-03/ff_nuclearwar?currentPage=3). > [@](#): > > Consider a game that theorist Thomas Schelling described to his students at Harvard in the '60s: You’re standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to another person. As soon as one of you cries uncle, you’ll both be released, and whoever remained silent will get a large prize. What do you do? You can’t push the other person off the cliff, because then you’ll die, too. But you can dance and walk closer and closer to the edge. If you’re willing to show that you’ll brave a certain amount of risk, your partner may concede — and you might win the prize. But if you convince your adversary that you’re crazy and liable to hop off in any direction at any moment, he’ll probably cry uncle immediately. If the US appeared reckless, impatient, even insane, rivals might accept bargains they would have rejected under normal conditions. In terms of game theory, a new equilibrium would emerge as leaders in Moscow, Hanoi, and Havana contemplated how terrible things could become if they provoked an out-of-control president to experiment with the awful weapons at his disposal. The context of the above article is different, but the bargaining situation is exactly the same. Brinksmanship is often an effective tactic when you want to get your way. But it is so reprehensible because we are all chained to the goddamn government, too. Republican gerrymandered electoral games have real consequences. It is also deeply upsetting that such a small slice of the electorate, the fire-breathers who vote in Republican primaries in certain low-population states, have such a vast and entirely incidental amount of political power when we are all supposed to be members of the one person-one vote club. Elevating legislation you don’t like is further irresponsible because in a crisis situation when people are on high alert, accidents, malfunctions, and misreadings that would ordinarily be ignored now take on greater consequence, at the very time when honest bargaining is needed the most. In a low alert setting, a minor radar malfunction might not cause you to launch bombers. But if you are alert and sensitized to the possibility of attack, then you cannot take chances and you scramble the air force if you see a blip. Of course your enemy observes this and scrambles his own air force. And so on. The responsibility for raising the temperature is entirely on the Republican side, so any misinterpretations along the way that cause serious damage can be justly laid at their door. So yes, on some level they are just doing their jobs and standing up for principle. But this requires shearing off all of the details that make this situation so extraordinary. It’s like saying that launching a nuclear attack is “just pushing a button.” It’s not false, but it is dishonest and potentially disastrous. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/144 "2013-10-08T07:13:46Z")
OK, how about I ask a question that I think I sort of asked in the OP, but danced around: does the 14th Amendment (I think I have the right one) actually mean that it’s illegal for the President to allow default on the debt? I’ve heard this a lot in punditry, but I don’t know if that’s so. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/145 "2013-10-08T14:21:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I know. Conservatives should just shut up and be quiet about their beliefs and about their principles. Goshdarnit. And preferably not vote or elect people you don’t like. There was an election. It was quite big and well publicized. I think everyone knew about it. The conservatives were quite loud about their beliefs and principles. Most people did not agree with them. They lost. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/146 "2013-10-08T14:30:01Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > OK, how about I ask a question that I think I sort of asked in the OP, but danced around: does the 14th Amendment (I think I have the right one) actually mean that it’s illegal for the President to allow default on the debt? I’ve heard this a lot in punditry, but I don’t know if that’s so. A number of Constitutional scholars (mainly on the left0 are making that argument. [Garret Epps](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269/) is probably the best known; he claims the historic context behind section 4 of the 14th amendment closely mirrors the circumstances of the current fight: > [@](#): > > This section was inserted into the Amendment because of a very real concern that Southern political leaders, and their Northern allies, would gain the upper hand in Congress in the 1866 or 1868 elections and vote to repudiate the national debt. > > The Lincoln administration had borrowed freely to finance the war machine. As Reconstruction dawned, white Southerners complained bitterly that they would now be taxed to repay the funds that had been borrowed to defeat their cause. “What, ruin us, and then make us help pay the cost of our own whipping?” one asked a Northern journalist in 1865. “I reckon not.” > > Southerners were used to having their way in Congress–they had dominated the institution from 1787 until secession in 1861–and many believed that when their representatives arrived in House and Senate, they would be able to tear up the nation’s IOUs. > > Section Four was the response; its language is extraordinary. First, it does not simply say that the national debt must be paid; it says that its “validity … shall not be questioned.” You should read the full article to understand his argument in detail. Epps argues that payments on Social Security are payments to pensioners–a group explicitly mentioned in this amendment–while default on US bonds is allowed because such a default doesn’t dispute/question the validity of the debt, it merely delays repayment. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/147 "2013-10-08T14:31:07Z")
Eventually zero. There are a few reasons why the debt ceiling could be ruled unconstitutional and SCOTUS will pick the one the most justices can agree to. 1. Congress implicitly raises the debt ceiling when it passes spending bills that are not supported by revenue. 2. Violates 14th Amendment. 3. By ordering spending and not allowing more debt, Congress is illegally restricting the Executive Branch in their duties. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/148 "2013-10-08T14:34:38Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > You should read the full article to understand his argument in detail. Epps argues that payments on Social Security are payments to pensioners–a group explicitly mentioned in this amendment–while default on US bonds is allowed because such a default doesn’t dispute/question the validity of the debt, it merely delays repayment. Except that SCOTUS ruled that Social Security is not a pension but more of a mandated insurance policy. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/149 "2013-10-08T14:37:00Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Eventually zero. > There are a few reasons why the debt ceiling could be ruled unconstitutional and SCOTUS will pick the one the most justices can agree to. > > 1. Congress implicitly raises the debt ceiling when it passes spending bills that are not supported by revenue. > 2. Violates 14th Amendment. > 3. By ordering spending and not allowing more debt, Congress is illegally restricting the Executive Branch in their duties. None of those arguments succeed even under the slightest bit of examination. Besides which, 3 is just double-talk nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/150 "2013-10-08T15:16:28Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > There was an election. It was quite big and well publicized. I think everyone knew about it. The conservatives were quite loud about their beliefs and principles. Most people did not agree with them. They lost. They won the House. That means they don’t have to go along with what Democrats want. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/151 "2013-10-08T16:04:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > They won the House. That means they don’t have to go along with what Democrats want. But apparently it also means that the Democrats have to go along with what _they_ want. In spite of controlling the other half of the Legislature and the Executive. Is that about right? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/152 "2013-10-08T16:04:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And most people who want to know are aware that Democrats are refusing to negotiate and are standing on “my way or the highway” principle. Nonsense. Democrats could easily come along and say, “Either we have universal health care, or we don’t vote for any budget.” THAT would be a “my way or the highway” situation, and I wouldn’t support that tactic at all. But that’s not what’s happening. Democrats are saying, “We negotiate without threats of destroying our country, or the highway.” Republicans are welcome to engage in the normal process of negotiation without waving a fiscal gun around. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/153 "2013-10-08T16:07:02Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > But apparently it also means that the Democrats have to go along with what _they_ want. In spite of controlling the other half of the Legislature and the Executive. Is that about right? Some of it, yes, Democrats have to go along with. That’s what it means when one side controls the Senate and the other controls the House. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/154 "2013-10-08T16:08:05Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But that’s not what’s happening. Democrats are saying, “We negotiate without threats of destroying our country, or the highway.” Republicans are welcome to engage in the normal process of negotiation without waving a fiscal gun around. Without the “fiscal gun” Democrats have absolutely no incentive to negotiate. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/155 "2013-10-08T16:11:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Some of it, yes, Democrats have to go along with. That’s what it means when one side controls the Senate and the other controls the House. But the (Democratic-controlled) Senate has submitted a CR that actually decreases spending below that called for in the Paul budget. So, they have “gone along” with something. What have the Republicans offered in return? ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/156 "2013-10-08T16:12:59Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Without the “fiscal gun” Democrats have absolutely no incentive to negotiate. What you refer to as “the fiscal gun” is harming the country in order to get your way. That should simply never be negotiated with. You are right, the republicans have no leverage without that so they are bound to lose. It happens, win the senate and presidency next time. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/157 "2013-10-08T16:13:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Without the “fiscal gun” Democrats have absolutely no incentive to negotiate. Are you unfamiliar with negotiations? Each side comes to the table with cards. Right now, Democrats have a very strong hand, and Republicans have a weak hand. That means Republicans will need to give up something they hold dear in order to get something from Democrats. Here are some things Republicans could give up: -Universal background checks. -Increased corporate taxes. -Increased estate tax. -Universal health care. -Increased spending on impoverished schools. -Increased food stamp benefits. The list goes on, and on. If Republicans want to negotiate, they need to put something on the table. If they’re unwilling to do that, then sure, Democrats won’t have an incentive to negotiate–but that’s because Republicans haven’t offered to negotiate. What you want is for Republicans to be able to negotiate by threatening to harm the country if Democrats don’t concede. That’s not a negotiation: that’s extortion. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/158 "2013-10-08T16:17:03Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > But the (Democratic-controlled) Senate has submitted a CR that actually decreases spending below that called for in the Paul budget. So, they have “gone along” with something. What have the Republicans offered in return? Wasn’t enough, was it? Republicans offered to pass the CR. With small caveats (such as delaying the individual mandate for one year). Democrats refuse. Republicans cannot cave in or they are finished, politically. Democrats want them to be finished, politically, so they are refusing to deal. We get closer and closer to debt limit crisis. Who cares about the country or the economy, we’re doing politics here. Weeeee! As I said in the other thread, I am out and all in cash. Let the stock market tank. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/159 "2013-10-08T16:18:05Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > It happens, win the senate and presidency next time. It happens. Win the House next time. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903/160 "2013-10-08T16:19:09Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Are you unfamiliar with negotiations? Each side comes to the table with cards. Democrats refuse to come to the table. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-the-u-s-will-default/669903.md?page=9)