It's no more outlandish than the fact that Congress has made two contradictory laws that force the executive branch to break one.
Congress - that includes a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled Senate - has told the executive branch through laws that it has to spend a certain amount of money. It legally cannot spend less (that's a Watergate-era statute). At the same time, Congress has refused to raise revenue sufficient to pay for the spending it has mandated. No future reductions in spending will change this fact.
Therefore, the Executive branch's only option is to issue treasury bonds to pay for the spending that it has to do - that is, borrow money (at negative real interests rates, of course). But Congress has also passed a law that puts a cap on the amount of outstanding debt the nation can accrue (the debt ceiling).
Therefore, the executive must break one of these laws. If he spends the money he's legally required to spend, he breaks the debt ceiling. If he doesn't, he breaks the mandated spending law.
I would prefer it if the president ignored the debt ceiling - it makes absolutely no sense, it doesn't limit spending at all, because of course Congress controls the purse strings. The president has little options other than to ignore one of the laws described above. Considering the 14th amendment (the debt shall not be questioned), the debt ceiling seems the obvious one to ignore.
Or you could use a legal loophole that keeps anyone from breaking any laws. Platinum coin seigniorage is a ridiculous idea, but it's not more ridiculous than holding the nation's credit hostage because Republicans are sociopaths who get giddy at seeing people suffer.
__________________
|