# Dear Republicans: The debt ceiling? Again?! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 17, 2012, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190 "2012-05-17T08:12:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/221 "2012-05-19T17:43:58Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Apparently, you don’t. Clothy, I’m honestly hoping you’ll understand this: The debt limit is based on paying for things we’ve already appropriated through budgeting. If we don’t raise the debt limit, we’re telling people, “Oh that widget we ordered, we’re not paying for it.” It’s like if you order a bunch of stuff on Amazon with your credit card and then decide not to pay the bill. Not increasing the debt limit is what a deadbeat does. You should be against it. But you aren’t against it, because your news sources told you to hate it, because a Democrat wants to increase it. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/222 "2012-05-19T21:15:19Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The debt limit does nothing to limit spending. What part of this do you have trouble comprehending? > [@](#): > > The debt limit is the maximum amount that Congress allows the government to borrow, similar to the credit limit on a credit card. If you hit your credit limit, you can’t spend any more on the card. Congress, however, has the discretion to raise the limit and spend more. You and I can’t do that with our Visas, but Congress apparently has the idea that credit limits are meaningless and they raise them at will, INSTEAD OF STOPPING THE GODDAM SPENDING! ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/223 "2012-05-19T21:25:27Z")
Point of fact: I can call my credit card companies today and raise my credit limits on my cards. They’d be more than happy to, in fact, and have often done that unbidden. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/224 "2012-05-19T21:36:41Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > What part of this do you have trouble comprehending? > > If you hit your credit limit, you can’t spend any more on the card. Congress, however, has the discretion to raise the limit and spend more. You and I can’t do that with our Visas, but Congress apparently has the idea that credit limits are meaningless and they raise them at will, INSTEAD OF STOPPING THE GODDAM SPENDING! Clothy, I know you can understand this. Congress already spent the money, they did this via the budget and legislation. They already spent the money. They already spent the money. You are asking, by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, to not pay for the things that congress already spent the money on. You are asking the US, the most powerful nation in the world to be a deadbeat and not pay its bills. You are asking for this. I agree that congress should spend less money. But the time to do that is when they are making budgets and appropriating it. It is not good to not spend money after we already have already decided to spend it. That makes us deadbeats. You are asking for the US government to not pay its bills. You, the buzz-cut old taekwondo teacher, a guy who lives in Texas, is demanding that we not pay our bills. You, are asking us to be deadbeats. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/225 "2012-05-19T22:45:59Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > If you hit your credit limit, you can’t spend any more on the card. You are wrong. Congress can continue to spend even when the debt limit has been reached. The debt limit in no way prevents Congress from passing spending bills. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/226 "2012-05-19T23:51:51Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Wasn’t S&P at least to some degree complicit in the conditions that led to the financial meltdowns? They _did_, after all, give unjustifiably rosy ratings to instruments that proved to be, well, let’s just call them less than gilt-edged. Sure they screwed up. So did Moody’s. > [@](#): > > I’m not prepared to simply grant the professional credit rating agencies the standing as the arbiters of what constitutes “reasonable and professional questioning” _viv-a-vis_ the soundness of US debt. Thank you for saying so, and I agree. Neither S&P nor Moody’s is the final authority. They do, however, constitute _evidence_ for the soundness of US debt. The S&P downgrade is a legitimate warning bell. If this ever went to court, the quality of that evidence would have to be weighed (before the case was thrown out on a technicality). > [@](#): > > I may (or may not) base my personal decision on whether to buy US debt on what they tell me. But I will not accept that a downgrade of the credit rating in any way changes the obligation of the United States to honor the debts they _have_ sold to me. Woah. Of course S&P has no decision authority. But they do make an independent nonpartisan evaluation of the soundness of US debt which is directly related to its “Validity”, as the 14th amendment puts it. Ok. Now let me add some caveats. 1. I understand that S&P has the reputation of the stupidest of the 3 ratings agencies. 2. Moody’s sensibly evaluates US debt as an investment: their rating cooresponds to the odds and magnitude of financial losses. S&P does something different: they rate the probability of default alone. So actually the 2 ratings are pretty consistent. Thanks to the rise of irrationality and hyperemotionalism in the Republican Party, the odds of a default event are no longer zero. That said, I agree with Moody’s that the financial penalty associated with that is likely to be super-low. And AA+ is nothing to sneeze at. 3. It might be reasonable to look at what the bond market says, though this is hard because they are evaluating default risk as well as interest rate risk. That said, US bond prices are at near-record highs now. > [@](#): > > AIUI, the Amendment forbids the government from defaulting on its debt. It does not forbid anyone from expressing doubt on the question of whether the debt will be paid. And it does not burden the government with preventing people from doing so. Let’s look at the language: Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. … The language goes beyond “No default”. It says essentially that the debt should be above reproach – AAA in other words, IMHO. \* Again, the Supremes aren’t going to wade into this. But the Republican House is acting in ways both sanctimonious and highly irresponsible. Furthermore and separately, the constitutional cudgel is a valid one, albeit also qualified. - Setting constitutional issues aside, I’ll top Bricker’s point. I agree it is dishonorable to gratuitously play games with the credit of the United States government. I also think that a worthy goal of state government is to attain a AAA rating. Now that isn’t always possible. But I see it as one metric of responsible and sensible governance. That California rating has crashed from AAA to A- is a reflection of its government’s dysfunction. I see that Louisiana’s AA- beats the Golden State. And those state governments who can deliver AAA during the worst recession in post-War history (eg Minnesota, Maryland) deserve acclaim. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/227 "2012-05-20T00:03:02Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > If you hit your credit limit, you can’t spend any more on the card. Congress, however, has the discretion to raise the limit and spend more. You and I can’t do that with our Visas, but Congress apparently has the idea that credit limits are meaningless and they raise them at will, INSTEAD OF STOPPING THE GODDAM SPENDING! I guess I should discuss some of the economics of this. If you slash spending and cut the budget deficit during a downturn, it’s a recipe for disaster. We learned that in 1937. Austerity only works if you are a smallish country that cuts it budget _while it depreciates its currency_ leading to an export boom. That’s not viable for the US in 2012: our economy is too big and the world is in a slump. Hey maybe me and the standard macroeconomic textbooks are wrong. But the economy is neither Republican or Democrat: it just is. Bad policies have bad outcomes. Anyway, I’d be a lot more impressed with Clothahump if he railed on deficits during the Bush years. Those unaffordable tax cuts are part of our _medium and long run_ deficit problem, which is very real. Over the short run though, higher budget deficits are appropriate. And yes, I have the same stance during recessions when Republicans are in office. The costs of US debt are 2 fold. One, there is solvency risk, which is modest but not zero for the moment, given our current debt/gdp ratio. Second, if we were not in a slump, federal spending would crowd out investment. But with interest rates at record lows, that effect does not apply. During recession, [higher spending can actually _stimulate_ investment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator_effect), as businesses anticipate greater demand for goods and services. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/228 "2012-05-20T02:10:18Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > If you hit your credit limit, you can’t spend any more on the card. Congress, however, has the discretion to raise the limit and spend more. You and I can’t do that with our Visas, but Congress apparently has the idea that credit limits are meaningless and they raise them at will, INSTEAD OF STOPPING THE GODDAM SPENDING! You don’t really get the analogy, either. The credit limit on a credit card represents the maximim amount of money Visa is willing to lend me. The U.S. federal debt limit obviously is NOT the maximum amount of money its creditors are willing to lend it, since U.S. treasury bonds continue to be in high demand. We don’t really even know what the U.S. government’s maximum credit card balance is, but it’s way, way higher than it is now. The federal debt ceiling is more akin to a person deciding there’s a personal limit to what they’re willing to put on the Visa card, one that is well below the limit. Hell, I don’t even know the limit on my Visa… I think it’s $16,000. But that’s far above my acceptable debt ceiling. I never get close to it because I’d panic if I did. My “Debt ceiling” is, in effect, more like a thousand bucks. What Congress is doing is exactly akin to me ordering three IPads six months ago, at a cost of $2000, and then showing up at the store today to receive them, and when the guy at the store hands them to me, saying “I have no cash and I refuse to allow you to put more than $1000 on my Visa.” ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/229 "2012-05-20T03:12:57Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > What Congress is doing is exactly akin to me ordering three IPads six months ago, at a cost of $2000, and then showing up at the store today to receive them, and when the guy at the store hands them to me, saying “I have no cash and I refuse to allow you to put more than $1000 on my Visa.” Well, I’d say it’s more like you sending your executive assistant to the store with Direct Orders not to come back without the three iPads, and not to put more than $1000 on your Visa, just so you can bitch about how bad your assistant is in hopes your bosses might fire him. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/230 "2012-05-20T13:27:25Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > STOPPING THE GODDAM SPENDING! Obviously you’ve thought a bit about what Congress should stop spending money _on_. Care to tell us what your preferred budget would look like, what current spending would be omitted (I won’t even bother asking what revenue increases you’d look for; we already know), and how the result would become balanced? Or, as is most likely the case, are you simply so fascinated by Megyn Kelly’s boobs that you haven’t thought beyond whatever she tells you to think? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/231 "2012-05-21T01:56:58Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Let’s look at the language: Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. … The language goes beyond “No default”. It says essentially that the debt should be above reproach – AAA in other words, IMHO. \* No, as I explained in an earlier post, " …shall not be questioned…" is a term of legal art meaning that it may not be challenged in court. I pointed that the same phrase appears in the Speech and Debate clause. It does not mean that the debt should be above reproach. It means that the debt cannot be disavowed; it must be honored… because it cannot be questioned AT LAW. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/232 "2012-05-21T02:12:05Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > . I’m going to interpret this last bit as a joke. If it’s not, it’s a ridiculous stretch. Let me quote Art I, Sec 6: > The Senators and Representatives… shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. “Questioned” in this context clearly means, “Questioned by the local constabulary”. There’s really no parallel to the language in the 14th amendment. argh!! No, no, no!! Geeze, read any one a zillion Speech or Debate Clause cases, say, US v Johnson. The Supreme Court held the Speech or Debate Clause stops “judicial inquiry into the motivation for a Congressman’s speech and prevents such a speech from being made the basis of a criminal charge against a Congressman for conspiracy to defraud the Government by impeding the due discharge of its functions.” It prevents a Congressman from being sued for slander or libel for anything he says on the floor of his House. Where the hell did you get the idea that it just means the local constabulary? Have you read a single case dealing with the clause? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/233 "2012-05-21T03:17:58Z")
Clearly a member of Congress can be “questioned” by anyone, including the “local constabulary”, in the usual lay sense of the word. So a police officer – like anyone – might lawfully say, “Congressman, why did you say those stupid things in your speech in Congress last week?” So – equally clearly – that’s not what the word means in this context. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/234 "2012-05-21T06:39:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > argh!! > > No, no, no!! Heh. > [@](#): > > Have you read a single case dealing with the clause? No. Ignorance fought. Salvage operations on the tatters of my argument commenced. Bricker: I’m inclined to take you at your word. FWIW, I think my views may have reflected an Atlantic piece Garrett Epps, Professor of Constitutional Law and Creative Writing at the University of Baltimore that I read last summer. It doesn’t mention credit agencies though and my current take is that my S&P line is implausible. It does however point to some constitutional ambiguities which while unfortunate don’t really prop up my argument. So I retract. [Our National Debt 'Shall Not Be Questioned,' the Constitution Says - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269/) ETA: Creative arguments that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, a roundup: [Is The Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional? – Outside the Beltway](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/235 "2012-05-21T14:23:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Obviously you’ve thought a bit about what Congress should stop spending money _on_. Care to tell us what your preferred budget would look like, what current spending would be omitted (I won’t even bother asking what revenue increases you’d look for; we already know), and how the result would become balanced? > > Or, as is most likely the case, are you simply so fascinated by Megyn Kelly’s boobs that you haven’t thought beyond whatever she tells you to think? Elvis, were you born an ignorant asshole, or do you take lessons at it? Do you even bother to look at the money the U. S. Government pisses away on illegal, unconstitutional things? A great starting place would be closing down federal agencies that have no constitutional mandate for existence. We could start with the EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development just for a toehold in the major offices. There are hundreds of smaller departments that we could whack and never miss. And we cut every friggin’ federal government welfare program. We’ve got only two ways to go: increase government revenues or decrease government expenditures. This addresses the second. The first will be addressed by the improvement in the economy that will occur when the private sector sees that something is being done to rein in the federal government’s spending us into oblivion. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/236 "2012-05-21T14:25:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You are wrong. Congress can continue to spend even when the debt limit has been reached. The debt limit in no way prevents Congress from passing spending bills. That’s the whole point. They ignore the “laws” that they themselves pass. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/237 "2012-05-21T14:26:15Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Elvis, were you born an ignorant asshole, or do you take lessons at it? Do you even bother to look at the money the U. S. Government pisses away on illegal, unconstitutional things? > > A great starting place would be closing down federal agencies that have no constitutional mandate for existence. We could start with the EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development just for a toehold in the major offices. There are hundreds of smaller departments that we could whack and never miss. And we cut every friggin’ federal government welfare program. > > We’ve got only two ways to go: increase government revenues or decrease government expenditures. This addresses the second. The first will be addressed by the improvement in the economy that will occur when the private sector sees that something is being done to rein in the federal government’s spending us into oblivion. Clothy, you need to understand that the debt ceiling is us paying for things we’ve already bought. You are asking for America, the most powerful nation on Earth, to skip out on the check after its eaten. Is that how you were taught by your parents? To not pay for things you buy? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/238 "2012-05-21T14:36:49Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > That’s the whole point. They ignore the “laws” that they themselves pass. The debt limit places no legal constraint on Congress to restrain spending. You just don’t get it. Congress has the credit card, and makes the purchases with it. The President has the checkbook, and is expected to pay the credit card bill when it comes due. By not raising the debt limit, Congress is trying to prevent the President from paying the credit card bill, all the while passing more spending legislation and increasing the debt on the credit card. No one is breaking the law; Congress is just acting irresponsibly by not allowing the President to pay the bills they racked up. Don’t you see the problem here? If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the Republican Congress who insists on [spending more than the President requests](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iyCfdUipT58DJGxBy1z5ollv1vig?docId=CNG.0d8e1a34f8eed2b6a7343577531cf5e3.271). Being angry at the President because he wants to pay the bills that were legally incurred is just childish and irresponsible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/239 "2012-05-21T14:38:58Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Heh. No. > > Ignorance fought. Salvage operations on the tatters of my argument commenced. > > Bricker: I’m inclined to take you at your word. FWIW, I think my views may have reflected an Atlantic piece Garrett Epps, Professor of Constitutional Law and Creative Writing at the University of Baltimore that I read last summer. It doesn’t mention credit agencies though and my current take is that my S&P line is implausible. It does however point to some constitutional ambiguities which while unfortunate don’t really prop up my argument. So I retract. [Our National Debt 'Shall Not Be Questioned,' the Constitution Says - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/our-national-debt-shall-not-be-questioned-the-constitution-says/238269/) > > ETA: Creative arguments that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, a roundup: [Is The Debt Ceiling Unconstitutional? – Outside the Beltway](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/) I appreciate the concession. In fact, given the usual alternative of people simply walking away or obstinately repeating their claims, it’s a freakin’ ray of sunshine to read. Thank you very much. My only comment about Epps’ piece is that he ignores the lines from Perry that destroy his claim: > [@](#): > > There is a clear distinction between the power of the Congress to control or interdict the contracts of private parties when they interfere with the exercise of its constitutional authority and the power of the Congress to alter or repudiate the substance of its own engagements when it has borrowed money under the authority which the Constitution confers. **In authorizing the Congress to borrow money** , the Constitution empowers the Congress to fix the amount to be borrowed and the terms of payment. **By virtue of the power to borrow money ‘on the credit of the United States,’** the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the government can give, its plighted faith. To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government. The entire discussion in Perry is focused on Congress’ power to borrow money. Not on Congress’ appropriations power. Never has the 14th Amendment meant that Congress must keep to the promises it makes by appropriation. It’s the promises Congress makes when it _borrows_ money that the Constitution commands be honored. Simple as that, Prof. Epps. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/240 "2012-05-21T14:42:25Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The debt limit places no legal constraint on Congress to restrain spending. > > You just don’t get it. > > Congress has the credit card, and makes the purchases with it. The President has the checkbook, and is expected to pay the credit card bill when it comes due. > > By not raising the debt limit, Congress is trying to prevent the President from paying the credit card bill, all the while passing more spending legislation and increasing the debt on the credit card. > > No one is breaking the law; Congress is just acting irresponsibly by not allowing the President to pay the bills they racked up. > > Don’t you see the problem here? If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the Republican Congress who insists on [spending more than the President requests](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iyCfdUipT58DJGxBy1z5ollv1vig?docId=CNG.0d8e1a34f8eed2b6a7343577531cf5e3.271). > > Being angry at the President because he wants to pay the bills that were legally incurred is just childish and irresponsible. Correct. +1. Being upset about the amount we’re spending makes excellent sense. But being upset about paying for it, after we’ve decided to spend it, is utterly misplaced. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190.md?page=13)