www.ditl.org

Okay, so let me get this straight.

Congress is the one that mandates spending. For all that the President can send a budget to congress, that budget is just a suggestion - Congress can change or ignore it as it pleases. And once passed, the President and the government MUST spend the money mandated.

Congress then mandates the collection of taxes. And typically, Congress mandates that less money be taken in taxes than be spent on programs. Hence the deficit. Fair enough, a lot of countries run a deficit.

But then there is the "debt ceiling", in which Congress tells the government how much it can borrow. And Congress now turns around and says to the President "give us concessions or we won't raise the debt ceiling."

So, this is basically me saying to you "You HAVE to go buy a hundred dollars worth of groceries... and here's eighty dollars to do it... and you can only borrow fifteen dollars to make up the difference. And I WON'T give you the extra five unless we cut a deal where I get concessions off you!"

Sorry. That's just insane.

Yes... yes it is.


Its always nice to see that terrorists run our country (holding the country hostage over something they want, causing panic and economic destruction).


All over a health care plan that just might work (the fact I would no longer pay 50% of my paycheck for single person care would be nice), since several states have had it for years.

That's about right, Graham. String 'em up on treason at this point.

Its always interesting to see people's reactions and thoughts who live outside the US. Makes it refreshing from the kool aid drinking idiots here.

I think its a problem brought on my a flawed system. Sure people are abusing the system, but the system has abuse built into it.

The fun part is a national government is the only organization that can actually create money. It can literally tell the printing presses to spin up, or just change an electronic spreadsheet value to make more money. The problem is if you create too many of your country's currency, you weaken your currency compared to others, and it becomes worthless.

As an example, assume the country of Estaria has 1000 people in it, and there are a total of 2 million star-coins in circulation. That gives each person an average of 2000 coins. Through children, the population has slowly increased to 1250. Unless the government decides to create 500,000 star-coins during that time, the average wealth per person will decrease.

However, that will make the country go in debt for 500,000 star coins. Even if the government owns the printing presses, the net is that it spent 500,000 star coins more than it took in in revenue. It technically went into debt, even if it only owes that money to its printing presses (or coin stamping jigs). If it had listened to the IMF and tried to balance its budget, its people would be worse off (1600 star coins per instead of 2000). If it had passed regulation to limit its debt, it would prevent future money creation and ts people would eventually be worse off.

Even better, Estaria had to produce the 2 million star-coins from somewhere, right? People didn't just start with the coins, the banks didn't just start with the coins, they had to be created. So right off the bat, the Estarian government is in 'debt' for 2 million star coins. If it tried to pay off that debt, the government would literally drain all currency out of the country, and the economy would go back to barter.


Short version: If we ignore the debt ceiling, the United States is not in danger of defaulting (by separating from the gold standard, we get a lot more flexibility). The only danger a national government has is that its currency will become worthless. ("I've got dollars!" "So does my wallpaper.")

When we print enough dollars that the world gets flooded with them is when we should worry. On average, money should grow at a rate close to that of population growth (to keep the average wealth the same). If you want to make people better off, you need to create money at a rate faster than population growth.

By the way, we've been in debt from the very beginning, and can never pay it off unless you want to go back to caveman days economy.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Okay, so let me get this straight.

Congress is the one that mandates spending. For all that the President can send a budget to congress, that budget is just a suggestion - Congress can change or ignore it as it pleases. And once passed, the President and the government MUST spend the money mandated.

Congress then mandates the collection of taxes. And typically, Congress mandates that less money be taken in taxes than be spent on programs. Hence the deficit. Fair enough, a lot of countries run a deficit.

But then there is the "debt ceiling", in which Congress tells the government how much it can borrow. And Congress now turns around and says to the President "give us concessions or we won't raise the debt ceiling."

So, this is basically me saying to you "You HAVE to go buy a hundred dollars worth of groceries... and here's eighty dollars to do it... and you can only borrow fifteen dollars to make up the difference. And I WON'T give you the extra five unless we cut a deal where I get concessions off you!"

Sorry. That's just insane.

How can you have survived this long on such an insane system. It's surely doomed to failure.

I studied the American political system for my final social studies project in High School.

When it was made, and up until very recently, it was a very effective system, with fair representation, checks and balances, distributed power and the ability to adapt over time.

It is only in very recent history that is has been abused and manipulated in such a way.

Infact with very few changes it could go back to being possibly the best form of representation government in the world.

Get rid of Gerrymandering. Cap election spending at something arbitatry for all parties and have it paid for by tax dollars to keep spending down, eliminate political donations thus removing the corruption we see in many areas. And cap term limits for all branches to 12 years, long enough to initiate real change if needed but not long enough to become truly complacent.

With a few really simple changes it is a good system, but those changes are almost impossible since everyone with power would be against it even if everyone out of power would be for them. It could have 98% support and still not pass a vote.

It seems the chief flaw of the system is that it was built with the presumption that the politicians would operate in good faith.

Checks and balances mean that a lot of different factions have to agree to something in order for it to get done. That's deliberate, because it ensures there isn't a tyranny of the majority. But it leaves the system vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority. A minority group may not be able to force their own agenda through as such, but they can say "okay, we won't allow anybody to do ANYTHING until we get our way, no matter what it costs the country." And there's really no way to stop them.

The issue when it boils down is not a minority holding the country to ranson, they dont have the power. Whats happening is they are holding the Republican to ranson and the Republicans cant expel or deal with them with out a lot of internal fracturing which would cost them seats and votes, which they are afraid of.

Teaos wrote:The issue when it boils down is not a minority holding the country to ranson, they dont have the power. Whats happening is they are holding the Republican to ranson and the Republicans cant expel or deal with them with out a lot of internal fracturing which would cost them seats and votes, which they are afraid of.

They may be a minority but politically very powerful. Which to me sounds wrong. I know that a handful of politically powerful politicians who are not presidents have existed since the beginning and they have been bad or good for the country. But it seems of late, these powerful politicians have not been doing anything good of the public but their own personal agendas. Just an observation without any actual fact checking to see if I am correct though.

GrahamKennedy wrote:It seems the chief flaw of the system is that it was built with the presumption that the politicians would operate in good faith.

Checks and balances mean that a lot of different factions have to agree to something in order for it to get done. That's deliberate, because it ensures there isn't a tyranny of the majority. But it leaves the system vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority. A minority group may not be able to force their own agenda through as such, but they can say "okay, we won't allow anybody to do ANYTHING until we get our way, no matter what it costs the country." And there's really no way to stop them.

Actually a minority can't really do that (there is the fillibuster thing, but there are ways to deal with that). The issue is rather that while the Democrats control the Senate, the Republicans control the House.

Generally speaking I like the checks and balances thing, and get annoyed that people in this country sometimes act like scrounging up 51% of the popular vote is a "mandate" to do whatever they want.

However it is annoying with the budget, it would probably work better if there were a mechanism where if you didn't pass a budget on time you'd just go into a continuing resolution. Though we do have budget problems that need to be addressed, so maybe the continuing resolution thing would just be an autopilot right into the ground. What they've done so far is "just" waste some billions of dollars and inconvenience a lot of people. They haven't yet hosed up (yet) in a way that would have massive consequences.

IanKennedy wrote:Who is currently getting blamed for this? I mean by the public, obviously the parties will just be blaming each other.

Actually that's the issue driving all of this. Because of springing the Obamacare thing with less than two weeks to discuss, the Democrats rightly figured they public would blame the Republicans and so their reaction was along the lines of "awesome, lets shut this thing down". Even once they Republicans made an offer that was essentially just a way for them to save face, delaying one part of Obamacare for one year, the Democrats weren't the slightest bit interested, nor were they interested in discussing anything other than the Republicans completely caving.

People like to talk about congress acting like little children or whatever, but it isn't so clear how much they're actually upsetting their base on either side. I think the underlying issue is that our society is becoming increasingly partisan and the politics simply reflects that.

If anybody here in the US wants change, make a call to the politician from the party you'd support and let them know that, even if you wouldn't vote for the other party, you'll at least do what you can to get them thrown out in the next primary. That might actually get some notice.

Atekimogus wrote: But that is all besides the point, what I would want to know......what exactly is their problem with this health care programme? Again, 7th richest nation in the world. I hope they are not saying the U.S cannot affort it, lol.

Sadly no matter how much one makes one can manage to blow it all like a drug fueled rock star. The US was only a little bit better off than a bunch of countries going through austerity measures, but instead we're adding another (potentially) expensive entitlement program. In part the issue is that the baby boomers voted themselves a lot of later generation's money, and making those payments will eventually outsize our entire budget barring some kind of super flu that takes them out.

Though there is a bit more to it than that. There is a thought that once you set things up to fund kids dwelling in their parents basement until they're 26 while they work on their "art" while enjoying their medical marijuana and free birth control you're going to get increasing numbers of people doing just that which not only is bad for society, but will make people worthless and dependent and thus reliable Democrat voters. So the Republicans are greatly concerned about it.

GrahamKennedy wrote:It seems the chief flaw of the system is that it was built with the presumption that the politicians would operate in good faith.

Yup.

The biggest mistake the founding fathers made was they assumed that politicians would be servants of the people, working towards the common good and if they weren't they'd be thrown out. Ah, to live in a simpler time.

sunnyside wrote:If anybody here in the US wants change, make a call to the politician from the party you'd support and let them know that, even if you wouldn't vote for the other party, you'll at least do what you can to get them thrown out in the next primary. That might actually get some notice.

I have, repeatedly. All I get are form letters in response thanking me for my concern and assuring me that my congressman will continue to fight the good fight for me. After I asked him to stop. So yeah.

Although I have to admit, I don't think I am as cynical as this fellow. After all we made them decide not to bomb Syria.

Nutso wrote:Although I have to admit, I don't think I am as cynical as this fellow. After all we made them decide not to bomb Syria.

In that case he's simply got a word wrong. Replace "changed" with "improved", and it would be spot on.