What do you think would happen if we '14th amendment', which is effectively dealing away with the debt ceiling? hint: rich get richer and poor get poorer
United States isn't going to default on their debt. This is just mommy and daddy fighting over financial obligations and how much to put on the credit card. There might be a few late fees but the bills will get paid. If there are no debt ceiling limit/fights, then mommy and daddy will spend more irresponsibly. The more we spend, the more inflation becomes a problem. Those with hard assets will do great. Those who do not will struggle more and more.
Meaning, the loan was not paid, resulting in a default. What would be the consequences of that? It seems like you don't believe the consequences would be significant. If a significant number of Republicans share this view, they might welcome such a scenario, especially if they believe it would lead to a substantial but not overly damaging stock market decline and a relatively small recession. Just in time for the 2024 election. Since this situation has never occurred before, we can only speculate on the outcomes. It could trigger a massive stock market sell-off, a severe recession, huge increased unemployment, and a loss of confidence in the U.S. dollar as a reliable reserve currency (and what would that do long term?). Or worse. Engaging in this behavior is highly irresponsible. It is Congress that approved these bills and incurred the debt. It is foolish to accumulate debt and then refuse to honor the payment. It is crucial for lawmakers to exercise better judgment when approving bills and take responsibility by fulfilling their financial commitments.
Two separate issues. This about Mommy not wanting Daddy to pay the bill from last month's credit card. Not putting more money on next month's credit card is a different discussion Mommy and Daddy can have.
There is the threat that the Activist Supreme Court will rear its ugly head again. This is a Supreme Court showdown worth having. If the Rs let the US default on its debt for its own political agenda, Biden should invoke the 14th amendment and send the whole mess to the Supremes. if the Supremes put on their activist hats, more momentum will build to reform the USSC. If the Supremes avoid being activist, the debt level nonsense dies and will never happen again.
You posted an article that says exactly the opposite of your post, pointing out that the counterarguments to the 14th Amendment claim are right and that Biden should not challenge the debt ceiling. The author even points out that only by ignoring these counterarguments (in other words, being activist) would the court find in favor of Biden invoking the 14th Amendment. From one of the links in the article: Opinion | The Case for Violating the Debt Limit Is Dangerous Nonsense - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Reforming the Supreme Court isn't just being stymied by a lack of momentum. The hurdles are impossibly high. There is the Constitution in the way -- which the Supreme Court has conveniently named itself the arbiter of -- or large majorities of the House and Senate and the States legislatures. Or unity among the House, Senate, and Presidency for more minor changes. Or, at minimum, control of the Presidency and the Senate and a willingness to sacrifice some elections to just do some court-packing (which doesn't even fix the problem). Even if we had a national consensus, the tyranny of the SCOTUS is well entrenched and we're not getting out of it without an epic crisis.
The Constitutionality of term limits on Justices would be challenged. And SCOTUS would have to rule on it. They should, of course, all recuse themselves since they are conflicted but no way do they recuse themselves and ride whatever some lower court said (unless it was favorable to them already). If they decide putting term limits on themselves is not constitutional, then you need large majorities in both houses and in the states to impose it on them. If they'll be copacetic about term limits, you still need to pass it through the House and Senate (maybe 60 votes in the Senate) and get the President's signature. If Republicans control any of the 3, will they agree to blunt their commanding control after watching the liberals enjoy supremacy for 50 years? I'm dubious.
A constitutional change is the only way I would ever support such a measure. (60 Congress/3/4 Gov). I was more stating ... what other changes to the USSC are needed outside of term limits? New laws will not make the USCC more or less partisan. As people are living longer (specifically well off and powerful people), we don't want to see a world where any court is ruling for 1/2 a century.
I am not feeling very good about this, no matter how much one side hates the others you don't hold the world hostage to make a point. To many Americans will be affected by this and to sit there and say you're not going to budge until all demands are met is ludicrous, we owe the money and we need to pay it. This is one reason people hate politicians..........politics
The dumbass Republicans who held out on the speaker vote only learned that holding out gives them more power. They will gladly sink the economy to own the libs.
I may be misremembering but this but haven't we already had shutdowns due to a lack of budget? We ended up back paying people we could (federal workers, military) and paid out what needed to be paid out (social security, bonds). I admit I am not paying that close of attention because to me it's a game of chicken and they'll come to their senses before it is too late.
^Yeah, it's more a crisis of confidence than a full on default. Bondholders and foreign purchasers still get paid. These deadbeats are essentially defaulting on us, the taxpayers and the citizens.
