Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

Oh right, the alt-right troll is back with his shit hottakes again.

I didn't did read most of it, but alt-right seems is highly inappropriate. 
Capitalists aren't alt-right, even if they're knuckleheads.

[Great Order]

Oh right, the alt-right troll is back with his shit hottakes again.

I didn't did read most of it, but alt-right seems is highly inappropriate. 
Capitalists aren't alt-right, even if they're knuckleheads.

"Look, I'm fine with the insults but goddammit make sure you're doing it properly!"

[McTraveller]

I honestly think we've lost the thread a bit - myself included.

Short story: at the end of the day, they should just avoid this nonsense by requiring debt limit legislation be implicitly linked to budget approval in the first place. I mean if you are approving a budget, you already know if that's going to put you over the existing debt limit... maybe even legislate that a budget or any special spending is not eligible for approval if it would exceed (or get to within, say, 95% of exceeding) the presently approved debt limit?  Or put another way - you have to get a debt limit approved before approving a budget that would exceed it.

[Telgin]

That would probably just put us back to similar showdowns about getting a budget passed then, wouldn't it?  My memory is terrible but I seem to remember that being headline news a few years ago, with government shutdowns and all that looming.

[McTraveller]

Couldn't you just write a law that says, "if you don't pass a new budget, then you by default get last year's budget, scaled by the ratio of tax revenue this year to last year"?

"What could go wrong"? 

[Telgin]

I feel like this is a solved problem and other countries must do something like that, but I guess the political parties in the US like using this as a weapon against each other too much for either side to really fix the problem even if they get a majority in the legislature.

[McTraveller]

Is it solved elsewhere?

One "uniquely USA" thing I've noticed, is that we pretty much love to self-immolate in media. Basically we air our dirty laundry almost as a sense of pride....

[EuchreJack]

I'm reasonably sure "crisis" such as this one are baked into the American System by our Founding Fathers. It's painful, but it's part of the process of checks and balances.
I tend to defer to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, since they so recently rebelled from an autocratic regime when they drafted the Constitution, unlike us soft modern-day Americans who really don't know shit, up to and including our so-called "leaders".

[EuchreJack]

Is it solved elsewhere?

One "uniquely USA" thing I've noticed, is that we pretty much love to self-immolate in media. Basically we air our dirty laundry almost as a sense of pride....

Free Press, couldn't live without it, but it's nice to imagine.

[Criptfeind]

I'm reasonably sure "crisis" such as this one are baked into the American System by our Founding Fathers. It's painful, but it's part of the process of checks and balances.
I tend to defer to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, since they so recently rebelled from an autocratic regime when they drafted the Constitution, unlike us soft modern-day Americans who really don't know shit, up to and including our so-called "leaders".

I gota admit I laughed out loud at this one. I guess Euchrejack wins todays award for silliest take in the ameripol thread. The rest of you are going to have to come back tomorrow.

[Dostoevsky]

Couldn't you just write a law that says, "if you don't pass a new budget, then you by default get last year's budget, scaled by the ratio of tax revenue this year to last year"?

"What could go wrong"? 

(Notwithstanding that last line...)

Some US states and other countries do this. On the plus side no government shutdowns, on the negative side you sometimes go years (I think in one case decades?) without passing a new budget/appropriations bill, which can cause a lot of problems since you don't have fresh prioritizations or other forms of responsiveness to changing times & circumstances.

I'm reasonably sure "crisis" such as this one are baked into the American System by our Founding Fathers. It's painful, but it's part of the process of checks and balances.
I tend to defer to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, since they so recently rebelled from an autocratic regime when they drafted the Constitution, unlike us soft modern-day Americans who really don't know shit, up to and including our so-called "leaders".

The federal government and federal budget were really tiny and relatively minor until roughly WW1, pretty much. Most of the policies surrounding the federal budget are under 20th-century law as opposed to the constitution itself. Congress could easily pass legislation amending the budget, appropriations, and debt ceiling process in all sorts of ways, but 'chooses' not to because they don't have the votes. Government shutdowns over appropriations and government defaults (and/or global economic trashfires) over the debt ceiling make for good hostages and legislative vehicles in a system that, partly (I'd argue mostly) due to non-constitutional aspects makes it really hard to pass legislation.

[Lord Shonus]

The debt ceiling is a uniquely American thing, and a relatively recent one. It was first introduced in 1917 as a limit on bond measures, and was expanded in 1939 to cover all government debts. The limit became an issue precisely once before 1979, in 1953 due to the expenses of the Korean War and a hostile Congress. In 1979, a rule was passed making the debt ceiling raise automatically when budgets were passed. This rule existed until it was repealed by Newt Gingrich's "fiscal conservative"-controlled Congress. Since then it has become a regular issue when the Republicans don't control the White House.

Or, in other words, it really only exists as a political weapon. There is also a very high chance that the entire thing is unconstitutional (the plain reading of the 14th Amendment says the US government can never default), but pushing that button will require the adjudication of the courts. And even if the courts eventually agreed, the uncertainty until that point would be almost as damaging to the economy as a default. So it is much better to reach a deal than it would be to go for broke and hope to take the political weapon away forever. This also gives McCarthy great incentive to make a deal, because if he goes for broke and loses he forfeits his political weapon forever. Which is why after weeks of bluster, McCarthy is now announcing "great progress" in the talks.

[dragdeler]

I didn't did read most of it, but alt-right seems is highly inappropriate. 
Capitalists aren't alt-right, even if they're knuckleheads.

You'd think someone who understands the world through money-flows wouldn't be ideologically bound to presume that the government must necessarily act more wasteful than an army of middle-men with profit motives.

It's fair to theorize that single-payer could provide similar value in terms of socializing risk, although it will do so less efficiently by design

[Maximum Spin]

(the plain reading of the 14th Amendment says the US government can never default)

The plain reading of the (relevant clause of the) 14th amendment is "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.", which sounds more like a prior restraint on speech. Defaulting on a debt is certainly not the same thing as questioning its validity - the debt was valid, you just can't pay it. The Supreme Court has established precedent that 14A prevents Congress from cancelling lawfully authorized debt, but cancelling is also not the same thing as defaulting. Of course, many professors have pontificated about this, but assuming what the Supreme Court will do is a fools' errand.
And hitting the debt limit doesn't trigger a default anyway.

You'd think someone who understands the world through money-flows wouldn't be ideologically bound to presume that the government must necessarily act more wasteful than an army of middle-men with profit motives.

It's fair to theorize that single-payer could provide similar value in terms of socializing risk, although it will do so less efficiently by design

... you are aware that most supporters of single-payer healthcare, including in this very thread, repeatedly cite as one of the benefits of single-payer health care that the government will have to spend more money on care than insurance companies are currently willing to do, keep grandpa alive a couple months longer for you, and not triage spending to keep it within the budget of premiums, right? That's "less efficient by design": your money being diverted toward paying for cases someone has already decided aren't worth the cost, whether you like it or not. The profit motive of the army of middle men is specifically to waste LESS money, so there is more profit to pay the employees with. It's not that I assume the government is more wasteful just because - it's that this is what people are asking for.

[dragdeler]

They don't? Most  ?! Most argue that if the governement could use it's position to negotiate prices that ressemble the rest of the world... If that were the case you still got a lot of money to waste before paying more for the same service.