# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/141 "2012-05-17T23:04:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maxine Waters: The president is a liar. Dick Cheney, the chief architect of the Big Lie, is not only a liar, he is a thief. A statement of fact. Do you \*really \*wish to call it equivalent to “Obama is a Kenyan Muslim”? :dubious: Is your need to defend whatever any Republican says or does really that innate? > [@](#): > > Democrats in the chamber boo’ed President Bush during the 2005 State of the Union Address. For lying us into a war of aggression that ruined not only another nation but largely our own, among other factual reasons. Do you really wish to claim that \*manners \*are more important? For God’s sake, man! > [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree witrh this. During the prior administration’s years, there were very strongly worded condemnations of President Bush from Democratic leaders. > > Note, for the sharp-eyed, why this is NOT a tu quoque. Unfortunately for you, yes, it is exactly that. And it’s all you’ve got, being not sharp-eyed enough to see any higher principle than partisan advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Makeitstop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@Makeitstop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Makeitstop)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/142 "2012-05-17T23:17:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The right thing to do is not to dicker around with the system as it is, since it is hopelessly screwed up. We’re way past the inflection point. The right thing to do is to abolish the system and rebuild it right from scratch. The only way to do that (if we’re very lucky and things fall right) is after a full collapse of the current system. Thus the worse it is, the better it is. Maybe. > > Of course, the collapse may result in something much worse than it is now. But then doing nothing will probably get us to the same point, just a bit slower. Why stop at the system? Afterall, isn’t the problem always the people that inhabit the system? Or better yet, we wouldn’t need a system of govenment if all those damn people didn’t need government in the first place in order to keep them from killing eachother. There can be only one solution: Kill everybody. _end sarcasm_ Yeah, anarchy is bad. Mmmkay? ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/143 "2012-05-17T23:18:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I can insult you because you demonstrate stupidity and an inept grasp of the issues. I have done no such thing, so it hardly seems warranted to attack lil’ ole me. Hypocrisy is a toasty golden deliciousness. Enjoy > [@](#): > > I, personally, don’t eat or drink food that has been handled by drooling cretins. you must be famished then. How do you eat? > [@](#): > > Again, utterly lazy. You can’t be bothered to inform yourself, so you assert sour grapes on both houses. Im informed son. Just because I dont partake in thoughtless kool aid doesnt mean Im stupid. In fact, quite the opposite. I dont think alike, I think for myself. I would ask you to try it, but it is obvious to me you lack the skill set. Enjoy the Hypocrisy, it seems to be all you have left ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/144 "2012-05-17T23:37:29Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > That’s just a quick scan of today. Can’t find the (R) who retracted the “Obama isn’t a citizen” speech yesterday… Because Fox called him a (D). 😛 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2012, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/145 "2012-05-17T23:42:25Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > At some point the system becomes so flawed it is not repairable. That point is reached when enough people decide they just don’t feel like bothering to put in the work to repair it. Lazy, irresponsible shits like you are a pretty big part of the problem you decry. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/146 "2012-05-18T00:04:15Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > But at the same time, youre also out gambling, giving large amounts of money to your friends who support your side of the story to your wife. You also got rid of the dog to save the money on feeding it, and now people are robbing your blind because you have no security. And how does that make it OK to reduce your hours and bring home less pay? BTW I don’t get the cog analogy. In what way have we got inadequate security? Who the fuck do we have to be afraid of? ---
**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 18, 2012, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/147 "2012-05-18T00:39:50Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > Hypocrisy is a toasty golden deliciousness. Enjoy > > you must be famished then. How do you eat? Oh, burn! > [@](#): > > Im informed son. No, you’re a lazy piece of shit. And you appear to have very little actual information. Lazy, stupid and arrogant about it. > [@](#): > > Just because I dont partake in thoughtless kool aid doesnt mean Im stupid. In fact, quite the opposite. I dont think alike, I think for myself. Ignoring factual information isn’t thinking for yourself. It’s not thinking. We bring facts and you demand that\* facts don’t matter\*. You are throwing a tantrum, not thinking. > [@](#): > > I would ask you to try it, but it is obvious to me you lack the skill set. > > Enjoy the Hypocrisy, it seems to be all you have left I’ll leave it to the peanut gallery to determine which of us is making an effort to keep informed. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/148 "2012-05-18T01:27:24Z")
> [@dngnb8](#): > > Before you try and understand what I am about to say, maybe you should check your health plan to see of getting a gastrovisual implant to correct your renal cranial impaction is covered. Wait. You appear to be implying that . . . he has his . . . head stuffed up his – _kidney_? 😕 Also: :eek: that sounds painful 🆒 I’m being sarcastic :dubious: I don’t think you’ve actually thought this through :smack: The anatomical term you wanted was probably closer to _rectal_ rather than to _renal_ :rolleyes: You’re a moron ☹ And yet, you’re a Doper :o I’m embarrassed for you :mad: fuck, I’m embarrassed for _us_. Nice going. 🙂 Have a nice day, moron. ---
**Author:** ![Enlightening\_Meditation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@Enlightening\_Meditation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enlightening_Meditation)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/149 "2012-05-18T01:31:20Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > [QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation] > The problems again will be that Democrats will refuse to make serious budget cuts without raising taxes, Republicans will refuse to raise taxes but demand spending cuts greater than the amount of ceiling increase. Once again, there will be abundant finger pointing and blaming the other side. Once again, the Simpson-Bowles committee recommendations (both tax hikes and spending cuts) will be largely ignored. …Cognitive dissonance much? [/QUOTE] The syntax appears contradictory as written, so…to clarify, the specific proposals from the Simpson-Bowles National Commission on fiscal Responsibility and Reform were not even part of the debt celing discussion last summer (at least not in public that I can recall). Were gasoline tax hikes discussed? Raising retirement age for collecting social security? Raising payroll taxes? Public option health care? Cutting the federal work force by 10%? These are all proposals from Simpson-Bowles commision discussions. Once again, these proposals will likely be ignored as politically non-feasible by both sides especially prior to the 2012 elections. Do you disagree? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@The\_Man\_With\_The\_Golden\_Gun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_With_The_Golden_Gun)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/150 "2012-05-18T01:35:19Z")
**dngnb8** , from one hombre to another, I’d advise you to just admit defeat, apologize if you feel compelled to, bow out of this one, and then lay low for a while until it blows over and you feel ready to give it another go. Sound good to you? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/151 "2012-05-18T01:42:41Z")
While Perry vs. US seems to be cherry picked to demonstrate that this isn’t a constitutional issue, I think other text from the case demonstrates the opposite, or at least makes it far less cut and dry. I’m certainly not recommending that it get pushed down this path (I can imagine Scalia’s argument already, silly as it would be), but I think some arguments in Perry could be used to do so. > [@](#): > > The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned.” While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, **its language indicates a broader connotation**. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. **Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression “the validity of the public debt” as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.** ---
**Author:** ![Enlightening\_Meditation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecc23a/32.png) [@Enlightening\_Meditation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enlightening_Meditation)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/152 "2012-05-18T01:47:32Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > [QUOTE=Enlightening Meditation] > > Boehner announced that he expects to have a deal with Bush era income tax rates extended before the November elections, but I would be surprised if that happened. Boehner must be afraid of the GOP losing the House if he insists on the debt ceiling vote to be completed before November. So in reality, this is not about reducing the country’s debt at all. It’s about threatening default in order to maintain low tax rates for the upper brackets. Sickening. [/QUOTE] Well, the GOP wants to either maintain tax rates or lower them regardless of anything else. Failure to raise the debt celing would force changes in spending appropriations (rather than default most likely). Many GOP members would definitely be on board with that approach as it keeps the debr ceiling from rising, forces spending reduction (in sudden and awkward ways likely), and possibly (at least from some perspectives) makes Obama look bad. For Tea Partiers, a further reduction in the USA’s credit rating and roiled stock markets around the world would just be minor temporary collateral damage in the fight against liberals. I really don’t think it would come to this situation until after the election, when the Dems possibly regain the House and re-shape the dynamics of the next debt ceiling fight for better or worse depending on whom you ask. Remember, the Tea Party caucus largely rejected the debt ceiling raising “Supercommittee” bill that passed last August. The Dems will gain seats in The House this fall, but I’m not sure if it will be enough to win back a majority. The prospect of this happening suggests to me that Obama and The Senate would prefer to raise the debt ceiling after the next election. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/153 "2012-05-18T02:18:42Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > While Perry vs. US seems to be cherry picked to demonstrate that this isn’t a constitutional issue, I think other text from the case demonstrates the opposite, or at least makes it far less cut and dry. I’m certainly not recommending that it get pushed down this path (I can imagine Scalia’s argument already, silly as it would be), but I think some arguments in Perry could be used to do so. This is the Pit. Great Debates is that way. Take your sensible analysis and facts and shove them! ---
**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 18, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/154 "2012-05-18T05:05:05Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Suppose the GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, and Obama says, fuck that shit, it’s unconstitutional, I’m going to tell the Treasury to act as if there is no ceiling. > > What happens next? > [@Bricker](#): > > I would imagine the courts would step in. This is not a political question. The Supreme Court has already said very plainly that “debt” in the Fourteenth Amendment refers to Congress’ exercise of the credit of the United States, not its spending power. …But of course Mr. Obama would not do such a thing, because, as a lawyer himself… [IIRC], there was some serious discussion of all this last year. Obviously there are some hard mathematical constraints involved: congress would be giving the President orders that are mathematically impossible. So what would he do? Interest payments and a few federal salaries are constitutionally mandated. If new debt is issued, it wouldn’t be clear whether it was lawful debt: could it really be said therefore to be backed by full faith and credit? Essentially, the President would have to make spending cuts or revenue increases on the fly. Frankly, I don’t see why he couldn’t just cut payments to specific Congressional districts, but some think the Supremes would not look kindly on that approach. [/IIRC] > [@Bricker](#): > > So your position is that the Constitution requires Congress to vote for any debt ceiling increase that is required? > > I don’t agree. You misunderstand the difference between obligations as a result of debt and obligations arising from appropriations. … > > The Debt Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains Congress from refusing to pay “…obligations which the government has theretofore issued in the exercise of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” (Quoting _Perry v. US_, 294 U.S. 330 (1935)). > > A failure to raise the debt ceiling will impact obligations created through the _appropriations_ process: Medicare payments, salaries of park rangers, payments to universities or researchers for research grants, aid to Madagascar, rent on USDA field offices and the like. Interest on the national debt, T-bills, would still be paid. In other words, Congress borrows money on the credit of the United Staes and uses it to pay appropriated expenses. Congress must repay the money it has borrowed; it has no Constitutional mandate to pay the appropriations it has enacted. > > In addition to the Supreme Court language I quote above, the Treasury Department’s General Counsel wrote to the NYT when this issue was in the news before, in response to Professor Laurence Tribe chastising Secretary Geither for saying what you just did. The General Cousel’s letter clarified that Secretary Geither agreed with Tribe that Congress did not have a Constitutional obligation to raise the debt ceiling… > [Letter here.](http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/FACT-CHECK-Treasury-General-Counsel-George-Madison-Responds-to-New-York-Times-Op-Ed-on-14th-Amendment.aspx) > > On this claim, then, you’re very wrong. I clarify: IMO the House Republicans acted unconstitutionally last year and furthermore this opinion is a distillation of sweet reason and germane argument. The Supremes tend to be reluctant to wander into such inter-governmental and partisan spats and I respect that. So they are loth to sanction the House Republicans for their dereliction of duty. Nonetheless, the language of the 14th amendment is clear: the validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned. We have an objective measure of the decline in the validity of this debt: S&P downgraded the US from AAA to AA+ following last summer’s antics. It is a constitutional obligation to bring it back up to AAA. House Republicans shirk their constitutionally mandated obligations by pulling stunts like this. QED: my opinion is just, rational and wholly lacking in legal relevance. > [@Bricker](#): > > It’s… dishonorable… for Congress to agree to spend money and then cut off the spending by refusing to authorize the debt necessary to service it. > > In my opinion, anyway. > > But note well that dishonorable, just like idiotic and partisan and nakedly political, are all terms with one thing in common: they are not synonyms for “unconstituional.” Perhaps not, but _part_ of the reason that this is dishonorable is that maintaining the full faith and credit of US debt is not only a moral obligation, it is also a constitutional one. Furthermore it advances the national interest. The US has a long run problem with debt. But stunts like these really don’t do anything to fix them: for that we need health care reform and a combination of long run spending cuts and tax increases. Democrats are willing to consider entitlement cuts. Republicans won’t countenance tax increases. The problems are not with “Congress”: the problems are with the GOP. Cite: [It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism: Mann, Thomas E., Ornstein, Norman J.: 9780465031337: Amazon.com: Books](http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337316833&sr=8-1) ---
**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 18, 2012, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/155 "2012-05-18T05:19:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Suppose the GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, and Obama says, fuck that shit, it’s unconstitutional, I’m going to tell the Treasury to act as if there is no ceiling. > > What happens next? Brad DeLong discussed how Clinton’s Treasury perceived the problem, when Gingrich pulled this stunt during the mid 1990s: [http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/06/the-debt-ceiling-in-historical-perspective.html](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/06/the-debt-ceiling-in-historical-perspective.html) Brad DeLong felt that issuing debt might be appropriate: [http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/07/debt-ceiling-mark-tushnet-says-bruce-bartlett-is-no-true-scotsman.html](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/07/debt-ceiling-mark-tushnet-says-bruce-bartlett-is-no-true-scotsman.html) > [@Brad DeLong](#): > > I thought back in 1995–and I think now–that if the shit truly does hit the fan (and it may well not, even without an act raising the debt ceiling) then the Treasury has a choice between three options: > > 1. Break the law and violate its “take care” duty by refusing to issue checks duly authorized and appropriated. > > 2. Break the law and violate its “take care” duty by issuing debt over and above the debt limit. > > 3. Break the law and violate its Amendment 14 §4 duty by defaulting on the national debt. > > It had seemed to me clear–and I believe that every single Treasury General Counsel would say that it is completely clear–and it seems to me clear that option (3) is a complete non-starter: the duty to ensure that the debt be unquestioned postdates the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and the language of §4 suggests to me at least a more stringent duty than the language of Article II. > > And I haven’t seen an argument for why the Treasury would be obligated to do (2) instead of (1) or (1) instead of (2). Seems to me that the Secretary of the Treasury gets to pick whether to impound the Social Security checks or to issue extra debt. > > After the shit hits the fan the rubber might meet the road in one of three ways: > > 1. A trial judgment by the Senate after impeachment of the Treasury Secretary or the President for failing to take care and spend money duly authorized and appropriated. > > 2. A trial judgment by the Senate after impeachment of the Treasury Secretary or the President for breaching the debt ceiling. > > 3. A court judgment after (a) a future administration refuses to pay debt in excess of the limit, arguing that the debt was not authorized by law, and (b) the debt holder sues to collect. > > But let me once again stress that this is not liberal-vs.-conservative, not Democrats vs. Republicans. It is the Republican House that repealed the Gephardt Rule and thus prevented the automatic increase in the debt ceiling. It is the Republican House that passed the fiscal 2011 budget that requires the increase in the debt ceiling. The Republican House has commanded that the Treasury spend and not spend, that it borrow and not borrow. > > Thus it seems to me hard to escape the conclusion that the Congress has punted what to do to the Treasury–and thus ceded to it enormous amounts of budgetary power. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/156 "2012-05-18T05:19:42Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > We are $15+ trillion dollars in debt. > > How in the hell can one call it posturing or grandstanding if people in Congress finally wise up and say, “Ya know - taking on more debt right now is a really, really stupid thing to do”? We should all be saying, “About damn time!!” The way to stop racking up debt is to stop using your Visa. It’s not use to go to the mall, bring your purcahses to the counter, and then pull out your Visa and say “I’m buying all this stuff, but you can’t actually charge it to my Visa. Just give me the stuff.” ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/157 "2012-05-18T11:50:05Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > While you do get a tip 'o the hat, I’m afraid that you cannot get a rousing cheer. It sort of like if you predicted that it would rain sometime next year, or that it is currently dark somewhere in the world. Unfortunately, you’re right. ☹ Ah well. Too drunk to post anything more constructive. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/158 "2012-05-18T13:05:44Z")
So, when is **Terr** going to start running on the Zombacolypse platform? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/159 "2012-05-18T13:20:15Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > While Perry vs. US seems to be cherry picked to demonstrate that this isn’t a constitutional issue, I think other text from the case demonstrates the opposite, or at least makes it far less cut and dry. I’m certainly not recommending that it get pushed down this path (I can imagine Scalia’s argument already, silly as it would be), but I think some arguments in Perry could be used to do so. No. The sentences you quote speak generically of public debt. But the sentence I quoted spoke _specifically_ of what constituted “debt.” It’s true that, standing alone, your quote raises some questions that might be resolved differently. But when you add to the mix the clear statement that debt arises from the exercise of Congress’ power to borrow, not Congress’ power to appropriate, then even the lines you quote no longer avail you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190/160 "2012-05-18T13:37:27Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The way to stop racking up debt is to stop using your Visa. > > It’s not use to go to the mall, bring your purcahses to the counter, and then pull out your Visa and say “I’m buying all this stuff, but you can’t actually charge it to my Visa. Just give me the stuff.” Correct. I was trying to come up with a good analogy at the household level. This is better than mine, which involved ordering cable and then getting the bill and deciding you couldn’t afford to put it on your Visa, so you weren’t going to pay. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-republicans-the-debt-ceiling-again-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-you/622190.md?page=9)