The link is to a post by jakke. It prompted these thoughts (equal credit should probably be given to the wine), though any article you’ve seen regarding zany default-avoidance schemes could probably stand in as a substitute:

1. I still believe this is all political theater.
2. I am not convinced that default is required. The Federal Reserve has the ability, if not outright authority, to monetize the debt. Unlike QE, which still accounts for the debt held by he Fed, a true monetization would just involve permanent open market operations that exchange treasuries for dollars and make the treasuries disappear. Since I am not a legal scholar, perhaps I am missing something. And, as someone who has stated that printing money to pay debt is a good sign of hyperinflation, this doesn’t strike me as a good idea. However, it seems strange to me that nobody is discussing this scenario. Duck the debt ceiling problems, avoid prioritizing payments, and get a potential QE3 all at once.

Seriously, I would like someone to slap me with the obvious thing I must be missing.

Right now, the decision to issue debt or not is largely artificial (perhaps only a legal issue). Banks are magically filled with new deposits (Uncle Sam’s checking account) before the treasuries are actually auctioned. This means that banks can use printed money to buy treasuries. Is it really a big difference to simply print the money into existence without a treasury auction? Certainly in the context of default vs. non-default it is a big difference. I’m curious about the actual legal hurdles.

(Source: dyn.politico.com)