The Looming Catastrophe

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Anyone want to guess what I am referring to?*


*Hint: it is entirely avoidable.

[N.E. Brigand]

I think President Biden tweeted the following image about it:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, yes, though the looming catastrophe will affect a lot more than just veterans (and not just Americans).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

House Democrats Move to Force a Debt-Limit Increase as Default Date Looms

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And here is one for N.E.B.

Is the Debt Limit Constitutional? Biden Aides Are Debating It.

[N.E. Brigand]

The last line in this clip, spoken by President Biden to a reporter yesterday, is "You get the problem."



He's right to call this out! There is a problem in Republicans demanding cuts without specifying what they want to cut.

But arguably the bigger problem is the refusal of the press to report this.

The reporter herself takes Speaker McCarthy's false framing of the situation as a given by asking Biden if he's willing to compromise on McCarthy's proposals.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[N.E. Brigand]

Nice quote in a new Washington Post story:

"The U.S. Treasury is Washington's golden goose, and the market shows the golden eggs it lays are still very much in demand," says Maximilian Hess, principal at London-based political risk firm Enmetena Advisory, which advises clients including credit insurers and other financiers. "And yet the U.S. has a rule in the debt ceiling that inexplicably says that the golden goose should be taken out back and shot unless it agrees to lay fewer eggs for a while."

I also appreciate one of the replies to the post where I first saw that quote: "What is debt? In its most basic form, isn't it trust?"

[Dave_LF]

In fairness, a couple thousand votes is all it takes to flip us back and forth between modern nation and medieval Nazi state. So maybe some mistrust is warranted.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There are a number of different threads where this could go, but I'll put it here.

[N.E. Brigand]

MTFC.

President Biden seems to understand why we're in this mess:



And if he also believes that there isn't time to "invoke" the 14th Amendment:



Then why did he not do so weeks ago?

I'm with Allison Gill on this one: ignore the debt ceiling, which doesn't actually exist anyway, and just keep paying the bills. And why "invoke" the 14th Amendment? it's already in force, and it says the U.S. isn't allowed to default on its bills. Let Republicans sue to stop the government from paying its bills. Let the Supreme Court rule that the government must not pay its bills. Whatever. Just keep paying the bills.

[N.E. Brigand]

One reason that Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 is that Democrats in 2011 gave in to Republican extortion on the debt ceiling and agreed to budget cuts that ended up slowing down economic growth, so that the economy in 2016 had yet to return to where it was in 2007 before the Great Recession hit. President Obama should have refused to negotiate then.

[RoseMorninStar]

Chuck Todd nailed it (for once).

[Dave_LF]

If Congress fails to do its Constitutional duty, Biden should dissolve it and tell the states to select new representatives who will take their jobs seriously. And due to the events that (visibly) began on 1/6, no Republicans allowed.

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm seeing various commentators saying that, if President Biden should deem it necessary to pay the nation's bills after the so-called debt ceiling expires, "It's possible that the Court would instead force a default." To repeat myself: I think in that case, Biden would just say "No" to the Supreme Court. I don't really like the Andrew Jackson precedent ("Justice Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.") -- and not just because it was a horribly racist move! -- and I hope we don't reach that point, but the President can't destroy the economy (while violating the Constitution, no less) just because the Court tells him to.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That would destroy the USA more surely than a default would.

[N.E. Brigand]

Two possibly contradictory thoughts:

1. In that case, the Supreme Court better not cross that bridge.

2. It didn't destroy the country in 1832.

[Dave_LF]

That comment might have been in response to mine rather than yours, in which case I'll say I was mostly just venting, but geez. It's been a year and a half and things have only gotten worse. When are Democrats and Independents going to stop treating these people like they're nothing worse than difficult coworkers?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, it was in response to N.E.B.'s comment.

[N.E. Brigand]

And mine was in response to V's. I don't really want a constitutional crisis, and I do recognize the risk that if President Biden were to ignore a Supreme Court ruling, then his successors would feel freer to do the same. I am not at all convinced that such an outcome would be worse than the damage to the global economy that would result from the U.S. government defaulting on its debt. I do fear that President Biden may have been too slow to grasp that many House Republicans are willing to throw the world into chaos and hurt their own constituents simply to undermine his presidency, and thus that he didn't plan ahead for this in time. We shouldn't be in a position where we have to wonder whether or not the rich men who appear to own a number of Supreme Court justices will pressure them to do the right thing in order to save their wealth. But if they do the wrong thing, it will be they not Biden who precipitate a constitutional crisis.