Here's a rather frightening article about the repercussions of a credit default:
Wall Street to GOP: Are you nuts? - Ben White - POLITICO.com
"A brief shutdown would have some negative economic effects and could create political blowback on the GOP. But it would cause far less long-term damage than a default, which would likely send interest rates sky-rocketing, crush the stock market, devastate business and consumer confidence, and probably send the nationís economy hurtling back into recession if not depression."
Let's say you and your brother go out for dinner. Your brother's behind the wheel. He wants Mexican, and you want Italian. You can't convince him and he can't convince you along the way. As you near a sharp curve, he keeps his foot on the gas and demands you give in to Mexican or he'll drive you both off the road.
All bias aside, is this not what House Republicans are doing? They had two years in the last Congress to push their ideas. They failed to pass their agenda through the Senate and signed into law by the President. They lost seats in the election. They've had another 9 months to argue their ideas, with even less to show for it. Now that there is no time for debate, they are demanding their ideas be enacted or they will allow a catastrophic default on the US Government's debt.
Is it out of bounds to demand this when you have not been able to convince your fellow Congressmen to support your ideas when there was time to debate them? Or is using the threat of disaster a legitimate political tool?