Isn't this getting to be a "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" situation?

[Silent3]

Not that I expect this from Obama, but if the shutdown drags on much longer, and especially if a debt default is imminent, wouldn't this be a good time for Obama to pull that rabbit out of his hat?

Regardless of already signalling that he doesn't believe it would work, I'm hoping that it's just a negotiating tactic, that when push comes to shove Obama would be willing to cite the 14th amendment, mint a $1 trillion platinum coin, do whatever ever it takes to prevent a national and global economic catastrophe.

Even more than that, going much further out on a Constitutional limb, if the shutdown drags on longer than 21 days (the longest shutdown ever so far) I'd want to see Obama simply decide to start running the country again under the same budget as when the last budget expired, explaining to the country that it simply makes no sense that the true intention of the Constitutional system of checks and balances was to allow great economic decay and hardship simply because Congressional negotiations break down.

I'm sure it would lead to an impeachment. I'm sure it would lead to the Supreme Court. If it's possible for the teabaggers to get even more unhinged and hysterical than they are now screaming "Tyrant!", this would do it.

But I'm also pretty sure the non-Tea Party part of this country would cheer that kind of bold, decisive move regardless of the meltdown that would happen on the right. Two thirds of the current Senate would never vote to impeach Obama for doing this. And if any of this landed in the Supreme Court, I'd say there's a good chance of getting at least a 5/4 win when what the opposing side is demanding as victory is economic collapse.

[freshwest]

1. The problem is this:

$250 billion (?) is the total revenue that the federal government takes in every month.

$30 billion (?) is interest on the debt, leaving $220 operating funds a month.

Minting a $trillion coin would be like playing with Monopoly game money. The nations that hold promissry notes and are paid $30 billion, will decide the USA is not good for the money, that it is all fake.

Wars have been waged voer debts. There is more than one kind of war. In order to continue to hold the debt and not reduce it to junk bond status, they have to have faith in our ability to manage it.

Invoking the 14rh to bring a recalcitrant GOP to its senses might work, but in either scenario, there is nothing to stop investors of that $30B to insist that the interest go up so that the montly payment would be $90B. Either that, or start giving them real assets, land, etc. to settle the debt.

It has been estimated that the total wealth of the USA would be halved if we hit default. It would start a spiral from which we will never recover.

Here is why:

Debt Ceiling: 'Chaotic' choices on 100 million payments

More information at link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110218177#post1

And if you go to the linked article here, you will see why there will be no recovery for many of us even after the 4 listed there in this OP:

16 Ways Default Will Totally Screw Americans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1102&pid=18177

[Silent3]

2. Paul Krugman offered a pretty good explanation of why the "monopoly money" issue...

...wouldn't be a problem.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/rage-against-the-coin/?_r=0

As for the rest of what you've said, such as "It has been estimated that the total wealth of the USA would be halved if we hit default", that sounds to me like all the more reason for Obama to invoke the "not a suicide pact" argument and exercise emergency powers to solve this mess if it's not going to get solved as it should by the normal, proper functioning of Congress.

[freshwest]

3. Well, I desperately do not want default. Or for Congress to get away with what they're doing.

If it takes Obama invoking the 14th, I'm all for it. I see the basis for it, even though last week in the full hour presser I posted he said he didn't think it would work.

Just like he said the trillion dollar would not work, for the reasons that I've cited. That is why I think that it won't work. He didn't cite the history of wars over debt, but people don't go to war without money crossing hands. The hands involved are for another discussion.

I'd rather Obama go to the USSC as with the ACA than see default. I just read the Krugman piece. That would eliminate the 'ceiling debate' without denying the debt will still be paid. Which should make investors happy.

I want this buried for once and for all. I've read on DU that no other country on the planet has this arcane rule. It was framed as if to say, a person runs up a debt, then asks a family member if they can pay the debt. That's BS.

The debt must be paid, it's not a debate after it's agreed to, since generally, one gets something of value for what gets credit or a loan to do, and it's only just that it should be paid. It would be like stealing from someone else and then saying you just don't like this or that.

Examples like, I don't like wars, so I don't want to pay for wars but am willing to pay for social programs. And then you the (rhetorical you, not you personally) don't like social security, but you make money off military contracts, so you only want to pay for keeping that paradigm alive.

It's called the social contract, and the teabags are being dishonest about it and refusing to take responsibility for their share from which they have benefited in their lifetimes.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer and information. Now if we can just get this done by October 17th.