President Obama scheduled a press conference Monday morning to warn Republicans that America is "not a deadbeat nation". That's more of a hopeful statement than a definitive one.

Obama may hope that the US is not a deadbeat nation; the truth is, though, that we won't really know that until a few weeks from now, when the US treasury is set to run out of money. At that point, as Obama pointed out, government checks will dry up: there will be no social security payments, paychecks for troops, or tax refunds.

Some Republican leaders seem unconcerned by that. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, is at the forefront of the movement to use the debt ceiling as political leverage to gain budget concessions. In a statement, he said:

"The president and his allies need to get serious about spending, and the debt-limit debate is the perfect time for it. I do know that the most important issue confronting the future of our country is our deficit and debt."

Actually, the most important issue confronting the future of this country, for the moment, is the millions of people who are unemployed and, increasingly, without hope. But let's ask John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives:

"The American people do not support raising the debt ceiling without reducing government spending at the same time. The consequences of failing to increase the debt ceiling are real, but so too are the consequences of allowing our spending problem to go unresolved. Without meaningful action, the debt will continue to act as an anchor on our economy, costing American jobs and endangering our children's future. The House will do its job and pass responsible legislation that controls spending, meets our nation's obligations and keeps the government running, and we will insist that the Democratic majority in Washington do the same."

There are a lot of ideas in both those statements, but they boil down to this: the US can afford, for a time at least, to refuse to pay its bills.

That's a mistaken idea. The idea that the US can avoid paying its bills is the kind of luxurious self-indulgence that only a rich nation – assured and entitled to its wealth – can take. The US is not running out of money, so some lawmakers, abusing that financial power, believe that it can afford to act like it is. We have so many advantages, the thinking goes, we can squander them.

This is hubris. And you don't have to be a scholar in ancient Greek literature to know that hubris is always punished – in people and in governments. Hubristic thinking is not clear thinking; it's not rational thinking. It's egotistical.

The second debt ceiling fight will show that America's inability to decide on budget matters is a character issue, a matter of hubris. It is not a temporary roadblock, but a reliable trend: we are willing to create a crisis rather than make hard decisions.

It is notable that, for all the posturing and yelling and press conferences about the debt ceiling and the budget, there are almost no specific proposals on the table. The president has not presented a budget. Republicans have not set forth terms that they want. Political positioning has replaced hard work.

For the next few weeks and months, Americans will become as sick of the term "debt ceiling" as they were of "fiscal cliff". Like the fiscal cliff, the argument that is sure to ensue around the debt ceiling is a manufactured one: a creation of a Washington lacking the techniques to make basic political compromises, ruled by petty enmities, and driven by fevered dreams of political leverage.

The debt ceiling, as many people may remember from 2011, is not a way to control government spending. Government spending is set by Congress, so if anyone has a problem on that point – especially in Congress – their time to address it has passed. The debt ceiling is just a number that tells us how much the Congress is allowed to commit the treasury to spend.

As of this moment, the Congress committed more money to pay its bills than the treasury currently has on hand. The only entity that can fix this is Congress; neither treasury, nor White House, nor Federal Reserve has any power to raise taxes or increase spending on its own.

So what would happen?

There's a neat flowchart of events that would ensue. To make good on those IOUs – to pay its bills – the government has to raise the debt limit. If Congress does not raise the debt limit, the US is likely to default on its debt. As it becomes more and more clear that the US is coming close to defaulting on its debt, the stock markets and bond markets are likely to show evidence of panic. That will hurt the retirement accounts of ordinary Americans, at least for a time.

As the "crisis" keeps going, we are likely to see worse effects: potential downgrades of the US credit rating, perhaps an uptick in the price the US has to pay to borrow money. More importantly, the US will be revealed to citizens and foreigners alike to be untrustworthy when it comes to its finances, which will wipe out decades of work to improve its financial reputation. That doesn't even count the humiliation of having our credit ratings cut again, as they surely would be.

The alternative: Congress could come up with a plan to balance the federal budget.

Those who want to take the US into default believe that the country is strong enough to take it. They will likely point to 2011, when the US came within hours of defaulting – and paid a mild price: a downgrade from a couple of credit agencies.

It's unlikely, however, that the US will get off so easy again. This time, the ratings agencies are expecting trouble, and nearly all have warned that the US will get a slap for flirting with default. Foreign investors, too, are no longer trapped in treasury bonds as the only attractive investment, as they were in 2011. Back then, the European debt crisis meant that no right-thinking investor would dip a toe into the Eurozone. This year, some Eurozone bonds have proven to be immensely profitable. The US is not, as it was last time, the only game in town.

If Congress toys with default again, it is playing a psychological game it is bound to lose.

The truth is that the US financial position – our debt, and how much money we have – is not based on budgets and deficits. It is based on psychology. Credit is a system of trust. Credit is a system that asks, "Are you good for this loan?" And there are only two ways to answer: yes or no. If you say "maybe", that means no. If you say "sometimes", that means no.

Just as F Scott Fitzgerald said that personality was a series of successful gestures, credit is a series of successful payments.

To this day, there are large swaths of the government – outside Congress, of course – that maintain that debt is a character issue. The CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies won't employ anyone who has excessive debt, or who doesn't pay his or her debt off. The department of defense has a nice rule on this point. It applies to people. It could just as easily apply to governments:

"Failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds."

In other words, debt is a character issue.

This is an interesting complication, because many Republicans who threaten to hold up the debt ceiling would also call spending a character issue. They believe that America should stop spending – especially on pension programs like social security and Medicare – to show fiscal discipline.

The most basic fiscal discipline, however, is to just pay your bills.