"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
.. .

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
...
In article , - SaPeIsMa
spouted !

"emoneyjoe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:22:41 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:


"emoneyjoe" wrote in message
. ..

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...ng-debate.html

Nice, but that would only cover spending on the interest of the public
debt
and *snort* any repayment of the principle.

Wouldn't cover pensions, utilities, military spending, etc, etc, etc

That depends, he could still have the treasury create
the money for that just like they have for the last two months,
how do you know they weren't just practicing creating
computer money to avoid default if they can't borrow.

Which brings a question to mind, what law or part
of the Constitution established the limit on debt, can
anybody point that out?

emoneyjoe



it's always funny to see how try to claim that because something is not
specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is therefore
automatically
UN-Constitutional.

Actually the Constitution is pretty clear.
If something isn't mentioned then the point in question is reserved to
the several states or to the people.



You know that, I know that.
But far too many others do NOT know that..

Finally, we have some experts who can answer this question: Which is it
reserved to? The states? Or the people?

--
Ed Huntress