The validity of the public debt of the U.S.....shall not be questioned (14th Amendment)

[Igel]

36. Yes, I probably will.

But it's a linguistic problem. You need to define your terms and stick to the definition. You can't let your words shift meaning mid-conversation.

If "public debt" is everything that the government has every obligated itself to, the public debt is probably $90 or $100 trillion. There are all kinds of payments we're on the hook for. Think of this as definition 1.

If it's everything that is on current account (plus the national debt) then it's higher than the national debt. But it also means that all kinds of government employees go around producing this kind of public debt. It sort of makes a mockery of the law, in that suddenly the ability of the government to pay the paperclip bill shall not be questioned. You also have to wonder if Congress really authorized that particular borrowing against the full faith and credit of the United States. They're current accounts. Yeah, it's debt, but "public debt" that's owed for goods and services rendered to a private company? Think of this as definition 2.

Now, the national debt is what, $15.7 trillion or thereabouts? That's the public debt. Let's call this definition 3.

The debt held by the public, though, is rather smaller because some of the "public debt" is held by the Dept. of the Treasury and some by the Social Security Administration. Do you really consider debt that it's illegal for members of the public to own "public"? Let's call the debt actually authorized by Congress, issued by Treasury, and owned by the public "definition 4."

How expansive is the 14th Amendment? Well, it has some examples. All fall in definition 4. It mentions other kinds of things that would fall under definition 2 and 1, but they're not called "public debt." They're "claims" and "obligations."

People want a power grab because, well, they think it's necessary. When it comes down to laws versus imperial decree, they often choose whatever benefits them or theirs the most in the immediate term. It's strictly short-term thinking. That got us the 2008 economic disaster. It gets us a lot of the hyperpartisan wrangling. It's not a good practice. It's no way to run a country.