Would Jefferson Support Raising the Debt Limit?

[Anti Federalist]

Would Jefferson Support Raising the Debt Limit?

Posted by Laurence Vance on July 27, 2011 06:04 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/92044.html

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing."

[AGRP]

And they would obey it? ha!

[Carehn]

Thats what i don't understand about all this hubub over a new amendment to the constitution. Its not like they obay the constitution to begin with so who the hell cares what they add to it.

I bet they would just barrow anyway and say they had to in order to balance the budget for the year. The constitution has failed and its time we start thinking of new ideas to curb the growth of government. I suggest a law outlawing all governments.

[Agorism]

Nice post lol

[Sola_Fide]

Would Jefferson Support Raising the Debt Limit?

Posted by Laurence Vance on July 27, 2011 06:04 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/92044.html

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing."


Didn't the AOC forbid this borrowing power?

AOC>Constitution

[moderate libertarian]

Probably not :)

[Aratus]

hamilton was more given to resorting to convoluded
economic approaches to all state + federal debts...

[RileyE104]

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Funny how Obama quoted TJ the other day... Guess he never heard that one. ^ :rolleyes:

[kylejack]

Would Jefferson Support Raising the Debt Limit?

Posted by Laurence Vance on July 27, 2011 06:04 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/92044.html

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing."
And the next sentence, "I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender."

Here's the whole letter: http://yamaguchy.com/library/jefferson/taylor.html

[lx43]

I don't they should have ever been give the power to borrow or own any assets. Also, let people opt out of paying taxes, then you will truely see how many people support the govts programs.

[Carehn]

I don't they should have ever been give the power to borrow or own any assets. Also, let people opt out of paying taxes, then you will truely see how many people support the govts programs.
That or let people pic where every dime goes.

[MaxPower]

Thats what i don't understand about all this hubub over a new amendment to the constitution. Its not like they obay the constitution to begin with so who the hell cares what they add to it.

I bet they would just barrow anyway and say they had to in order to balance the budget for the year. The constitution has failed and its time we start thinking of new ideas to curb the growth of government. I suggest a law outlawing all governments.
Now, while there is truth to the arguments you make here, I want to point out that at least the more "air-tight" portions of the Constitution have actually been successful at slowing down the growth of government. For example, take the Second Amendment; while said law has by no means gone altogether inviolate, do you really think that, in the absence of the Second Amendment, we would enjoy anywhere near the free access to arms we do now? Certainly not if most other Western industrialized countries are any indication. Without the barrier and rallying-point created by the Second Amendment, national gun registration and whatnot would have happened years ago, and gun confiscation would be very much on the table if not actually in effect.

In the same way, I don't doubt that a Balanced Budget amendment would not prevent the federal government from running deficits, but surely it would at least slow them down; I don't think we'd be seeing over-one-trillion-dollar deficits year after year if the Constitution expressly forbade it. The successful addition of an actual hard, explicit provision in the Constitution itself against deficits- though it would not end the war by a long shot- would represent a HUGE victory against big government.