As we approach the Aug. 2 deadline to raise the nation’s debt limit so the federal government does not default on its financial obligations, and I listen to the politicos and pundits debate the subject, I’m reminded of childhood games.

It’s quizzical how kick the can, drawing lines in the sand, charades and the fearless game of chicken can so permeate the discussion of the debt ceiling. Given the potentially awful consequences of failing to handle this matter in a reasonable manner, the references should be to Russian roulette and similarly dangerous games.

Should the deadline pass before a political compromise is reached, there are bills the federal government will not pay on time. We could have something like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The public may not think that would be terribly bad, given how upset it is with the amount of debt burdening the country. Moreover, most Americans are getting accustomed to watching the politicians strike a deal at the 11th and a half hour, with everybody feeling exhausted but OK with the outcome. The current budget deal was struck just before Christmas amid threats of a government shutdown and Social Security payment stoppages. Talk about dodging a bullet.

With the debt ceiling, the game is different. Here we’re talking about Uncle Sam’s debt, the U.S. dollar and the full faith and credit of the world’s leading economy. The international investment community has a stake in this game, and nobody really knows what might set these players off and when. Moody’s Investors Service warned it would consider cutting its top-notch rating on U.S. debt if the White House and Congress fail to make progress by mid-July in talks to raise the limit.

How does this sit with the international money movers? With the fragile state of economic affairs in the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom and much of Europe, risking the financial markets going into some type of tailspin is more than playing with fire. We’re not that distant from the Great Recession.

Revenue is one line drawn in the sand, and spending is the other. Democrats argue that no deal on the debt ceiling is possible unless it includes revenue enhancements. Republicans argue that any deal must consist solely of spending reductions. The American public is saying that the curbing the debt is more important than raising the debt ceiling, but cutting entitlement programs isn’t needed to bring down the debt. So there is political stalemate, plenty of brinkmanship and a proverbial time bomb ticking.

On the positive side, the debt ceiling debate provides a respectable chance that short- and long-term policies will be set that will have a meaningful impact on the nation’s debt. The middle ground will likely offer the best outcome. What is needed is a good wind to blow away the lines in the sand.

Peter Percival (ppercival@onlyworkforyou.com) is a registered investment adviser at Syverson Strege & Co. in West Des Moines.