The people are now following the governments example. So perhaps the government should fix its spending problem and the poeple will follow suit.

While you did post the average credit card debt spread out among americans it does not state what % of americans hold that debt and what percntage do not. It also does not say what their overall debt is, as in I have 2k credit debt but 8k in the bank. I would still be living with in my means. I know of no one I personaly know who is living off of credit like the us government is. It is a complete joke that governemtn spening habits are so out of whack with what is brought in. What would you say if your neighbor lived like that or if a company was run like that?

It's only crippling if something is dependant on more credit expansion.   Which could be negated by savings or even intelligent investing anyway.

Reigning in the debt ceiling doesn't cripple growth, it cripples mal investment.  It cripples the moral hazards.   It cripples Keynesian economic policies.   It cripples the bubble expansion. 

Don't know about you but I can learn to live with that cripple handicap.

Surely this is unconstitutional? And blatantly so? I don't see this making it into the actual law books. Constitutionality aside, this would have to pass through congress? Why would members of Congress vote to essentially reduce their power? That would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.

Well, the "Super-commitee" no doubt would be picked just like any other comitee.  So it'd give the oldest senators way more power...

and it would also give a LOT more senators plausable deniability.

"I voted against cutting medicaid but they just needed a 50.1% number to make it work instead of the usual... (I dunno 66% or something)."

Also it would GREATLY help reelection campaigns.

Want your state or district to be in the Super Congress?  Well since committees are chosen by seniority within the party.... better keep relecting the same guy!

It's an interesting idea, but i don't think either party would go for it, simply then because you'd have this committee in place that would guarantee an equal share to the other party, and since the dreams of both parties is to have three-way control of the legislative process, and if they are to achieve that, then you have this body that dicks with your supermajority

It won't happen

It's not about partial shutdown, nor even about the potential damage of millions of social security recipients going without for a bit. It's about credit ratings and the domino effect. We've sustained such huge deficits because of a high credit rating and the fact that our bonds are still a very good investment.

The venom of partial default will not be about what we can't pay, it'll be the backlash of investor confidence, it'll be the fact that Japan, with very high debt themselves has a lot of their positive balance sheet sunk into U.S. bonds, or China, whose consistent growth has been helping to float the global economy through recent turmoils, who also have a rather large proprotion of holdings in bonds that may suddenly find themselves sharply reduced in value

Imagine the credit-default-swap meltdown, but played out in the treasuries of the largest economies in the world, rather than in the banking sector. I'm not saying this will happen, but this is where the danger really lies here

Deal with the pain now or kick the can further down the road until the pain is so great we all faint from it?

No matter happens now, we are going to have to deal with some pain in the system. Just a matter of who is going to have the balls enough to endure it for the sake of future generations.

I have 2 kids. I'd rather bit the bullet than point the gun on them. I'd rather my generation be known for doing something other than insane debt and Jersey Shore.

Few are arguing that cuts do not need to be made, but in the short term a limit hike, even one lacking any sort of conditionality, is needed, and this should not be an opportunity for politicians to ply their agenda. In the long-term, i agree a more sustainable lifestyle is needed in many sectors, but we can't work out our entire future before August 2nd and a global bond-market meltdown

There is no reason not to run a deficit in the face of a short term loss such as a natural disaster other than some moral problem with it. It's the sensible thing to do economically.

Edit: And in your plan to save money for a crisis - spending assets built up over previous years would still be running a deficit in that particular year.

@Viper. I agree the debt ceiling needs to be brought under control and the US needs to return to surplus. That doesn't mean the balanced budget amendment isn't a straight-jacket for the government.

Sorry, Mr Khan but America and the world needs a swift kick in the ass. If we allow this crisis to just roll over in any fashion, we learn nothing and nothing changes. We just let it get worse.

Time to grow up. Time to pay for the illicit credit we gorged ourselves on.

@Rath, I don't want an amendment to keep our house in order.  That's what we have several government committess and offices for.