# Re McConnell's desperate, pathetic proposal to give POTUS unilateral control over the debt ceiling **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833 "2011-07-13T04:12:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/101 "2011-07-14T02:31:01Z")
No no no, you have it all wrong. They don’t want co-ownership of a BAD economy. They are very willing to take complete ownership of a good economy. So they take 100% of the good, and 0% of the bad, and the average is 50% ownership of both. See? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/102 "2011-07-14T02:33:20Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > You know, this is kind of astonishing to me. You mean they _don’t_ have “co-ownership” of the economy? It really is amazing. Apparently they think they can only win if nobody believes their policies have any consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Cyberhwk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7993a0/32.png) [@Cyberhwk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyberhwk)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/103 "2011-07-14T02:42:33Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It really is amazing. Apparently they think they can only win if nobody believes their policies have any consequences. I think they’re right. That’s why cut “waste” and “government excess.” Keep everything abstract so they stay insulated from the consequences of their action. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/104 "2011-07-14T02:50:11Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Shit, this goes beyond passive-agressive. It’s downright sado-masochistic! I wish I could draw. I’d make a cartoon of McConnell in nipple clips and bondage gear handing a bemused Obama a whip and screaming, “No! Don’t! You’re hurting me! I don’t want to raise the debt ceiling!..Hey, why’d you stop? I didn’t say the safe word. I’m into it!..Oh! You big Kenyan monster, you! You Nubian socialist! Not my loopholes! Please! You’re ravishing me!” The thought balloon over Obama reads, “There’s a ‘safe word’?” You have to find someone who can draw and make this cartoon! Or do it in MS Paint! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/105 "2011-07-14T02:59:14Z")
As if this issue will be resolved when the debt ceiling is raised, or the fanatics at the controls of the GOP will change their minds about tax increases. In this, the Republican’s position is intractable and cannot be sold to the American public. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/106 "2011-07-14T03:01:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > to be clear, I understand the resolution as something that has to be passed by both houses of Congress, vetoed, and then the veto overridden by both houses. You’re absolutely correct. I misread the story I had skimmed. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I would also think the nondelegation doctrine would not apply because the authority being transferred to the White House seems to be limited in terms of scope and time. This is less clear to me. But since the bounds of the nondelegation doctrine are about as murky as it gets, I’m not sure there’s much to argue. Is the “intelligible principle” something like, “increase the debt limit by this preset amount whenever you find it necessary?” Is that sufficient? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/107 "2011-07-14T03:06:39Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > What if Bachmann fails to be nominated, and goes rogue? They’d have to have her hunted down, if they could find anyone with big game hunting experie…oh, wait! ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/108 "2011-07-14T14:18:55Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > No no no, you have it all wrong. They don’t want co-ownership of a BAD economy. They are very willing to take complete ownership of a good economy. So they take 100% of the good, and 0% of the bad, and the average is 50% ownership of both. See? Well, to be fair, they’re only following the example of their corporate masters: Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/109 "2011-07-14T17:35:07Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I said nothing about them doing it to benefit Obama. The Republicans are, thus far, against raising the debt ceiling. The Democrats are for it. This proposal would allow for the debt ceiling to be raised without Republicans voting for it. That works out in the Republican’s favor, simply because they know that the Democrats have no real plan for solving whatever debt issues the economy is facing. Hell, even the Democrats know it, which is why-- assuming it somehow got passed the Senate-- Obama wouldn’t sign it, at which point the Republicans could simply point out that Democrats don’t really believe what they say. Or, at least, are too chicken to place the issue on their own shoulders. Just think about this logically; don’t you think the Democrats would be absolutely ecstatic about this if they had an actual plan in place? They’d get the chance to fix America’s debt issue and they could say they did it without any Republican help. If there ever was a political ‘win’, that would be it. > > If it did pass the Senate and Obama signed it well… Then the Democrats are morons 😛 But think about this. Why don’t the Republicans want to increase the debt ceiling? Is it because increasing the debt is a bad thing? If increasing the debt is a bad idea, then voting to allow the debt ceiling to be raised, even if you don’t get blamed for raising the debt ceiling, would be a bad idea. What’s the purpose of governing? I suppose the idea is, we let the Democrats do whatever they like, and eventually the public will get tired of it, and then we Republicans will win some elections, and then we can…well, what? Win more elections while still letting the Democrats do whatever they like? What’s the point of winning elections and putting Republicans in office if they let the Democrats do whatever they like? Wouldn’t electing Democrats be just as effective? I saw some of this nonsense on the other side in the last election. Liberals saying that they would be fine with McCain winning, because then the public would blame the Republicans for everything bad that happened. Except, the purpose of politics isn’t to let the other guys do whatever they like and then you don’t get the blame. The purpose of politics is to enact public policy that you believe in. If you believe that not raising the debt ceiling is good public policy, then it’s foolish to vote to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling, even if that means the President will get blamed for raising the debt ceiling. What this proposal reveals is that the Republican leadership thinks that raising the debt ceiling is good public policy, they just don’t want their constituents to realize that they think raising the debt ceiling is good public policy. Voting to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling is exactly equivalent to voting to raise the debt ceiling. Voting for things you disagree with so the public will get tired of those things and eventually elect you to undo them is the definition of counterproductive. If it’s a bad idea, how about you just don’t vote for it in the first place? Then it never becomes law, and the public doesn’t have to figure out who to assign blame. The purpose of governing is to enact public policy that you believe in. Say it with me. It is not to continue to win elections while the country goes to hell around you, and you smile and say, “Well, they aren’t blaming me for the country going to hell, so I’m happy.” If electing conservatives to office doesn’t result in conservative governence, what’s the point of electing conservatives? I understand why an elected official wouldn’t care as long as he keeps his office, what I don’t understand is why conservative voters wouldn’t care. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/110 "2011-07-14T18:19:03Z")
Raising the debt ceiling has been done over and over ,7 times under Bush jr. The party out of power often uses it as a political tool, but they understand why they have to do it. But when the Repubs used it this time, it galvanized some tea baggers and conservative nutcases. The Repubs could not talk them down from the ledge and now they have a serious problem. They are aware that putting the government in default would have serious consequences. They don’t need that on their record if they want to win future elections. But the baggers don’t know better. The debt ceiling raise allows the government to pay todays bills. It does not give them room to create a bunch of new programs. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833/111 "2011-07-14T18:41:27Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Since it is unlikely the Tea Party will support any sort of tax increase, this seems to have been the only feasible option. Of course they were between a rock and a hard place, so either way they were f\*\*\*\*\*. freaky? felons? feeble? folksy? faulty? flambe? feline? fogeys? futile? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-mcconnells-desperate-pathetic-proposal-to-give-potus-unilateral-control-over-the-debt-ceiling/588833.md?page=5)