Does someone have that Swiss and German formula that they use for their budgets? Or maybe an article or name for it?
the name for it is "debt brake"
the key point is that they function automatically, in the absence of legislative action, so that legislative deadlock cannot force default or overspending.
Its a shame math is the liberal hand of Satan.
more seriously, stuff like that is dependent on an extremely competent and apolitical civil service that won't quietly accept accounting nonsense like the one mentioned in the context of Texas above
It isn't effective as a binding rule to be placed upon a future government that may be hostile to it, because it won't be able to bind such a government. It's more of a rule to bondholders that that's what they're going to do.
So Texas has its budget set up so (on paper) it never spends more than it makes. Texas is doing okay financially. California spends money willy-nilly. That state is in trouble.
$34.08 billion in outstanding bonds is never spending more than it makes?
It paints the picture that Texas is on track to eliminate its debt in 47 years
but having spending outweigh income? Is this the same logic that says collecting less money means receiving more money?
I misread. I was looking at the rate of decrease in the 'spending' figure.
Every 7.7 seconds spending reduces by $1000, and revenue increases by $1000 every 2.9 seconds. So every 7.7 seconds deficit spending is reduced by ~$3,650; so at that rate they will be in the black in ~1370 days.
So in the long term they seem set to not spend more than they take in. Or are they claiming this to be the case now. I'm confused as to what you're disputing
0
Options
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Tomorrow I think I'll go buy some bullets for my 1917 SMLE. I was going to do this anyway though.
So Boehner's newly amended bill contains a BBA that is not actually completely fucking insane, based on what I'm seeing on TPM.
BBAs aren't a good idea, but this is the least retarded one I've seen bandied about in quite a while. No mention of capping government spending as a percentage of GDP, no California-style supermajority requirement to raise taxes.
The balance budget amendment, or any amendment, will have to pass through both houses of Congress and 2/3 of the state legislatures. And it would have to be done before next year, when the debt ceiling comes up for vote again.
How likely is it that even if a BBA passed Congress, the states would ratify it?
You need 38 states. We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that every state that voted for McCain in the last election will vote for a BBA. That's 21, by my count. They'd need to pick up another 17 states. I don't think I'd take that bet.
How likely is it that even if a BBA passed Congress, the states would ratify it?
You need 38 states. We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that every state that voted for McCain in the last election will vote for a BBA. That's 21, by my count. They'd need to pick up another 17 states. I don't think I'd take that bet.
Since there are better odds of navigating an asteroid field than it passing the senate, it is a moot point. But given that a lot of states swung right in their legislature in the last election and states tend to be even crazier than the federal government, I really don't want it to go to the states.
I think it is worth noting that we are currently in a crisis that revolves around the fact that an entire house of Congress is actively pretending the 14th Amendment does not exist. Don't really see how adding another "minor clause" to the Constitution is going to change anything.
I think it is worth noting that we are currently in a crisis that revolves around the fact that an entire house of Congress is actively pretending the 14th Amendment does not exist. Don't really see how adding another "minor clause" to the Constitution is going to change anything.
To be perfectly fair, being the only empire in history to effectively DECIDE to collapse would be an interesting way to end up in the history books.
Assuming there are history books a hundred years from now.
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
I think you're overestimating the applicability of the 14th amendment. If it comes in at all it will be as a legal hail mary from the president, and it's not clear that going that route would even avert the most serious repercussions of not raising the debt ceiling.
So Texas has its budget set up so (on paper) it never spends more than it makes. Texas is doing okay financially. California spends money willy-nilly. That state is in trouble.
$34.08 billion in outstanding bonds is never spending more than it makes?
It paints the picture that Texas is on track to eliminate its debt in 47 years
but having spending outweigh income? Is this the same logic that says collecting less money means receiving more money?
I misread. I was looking at the rate of decrease in the 'spending' figure.
Every 7.7 seconds spending reduces by $1000, and revenue increases by $1000 every 2.9 seconds. So every 7.7 seconds deficit spending is reduced by ~$3,650; so at that rate they will be in the black in ~1370 days.
So in the long term they seem set to not spend more than they take in. Or are they claiming this to be the case now. I'm confused as to what you're disputing
I was referring to the fact that spending is higher than revenues. I used the debt clock to provide a link to refute the argument that Texas has a balanced budget that was given earlier.
As for the rate and change of the numbers, you are of course correct. The only objection I have to it is that any debt clock is largely more than a propaganda tool since the change rate relies on nothing ever changing from the immediate present. I don't think the numbers are exact either, but they are decently approximated.
Yeah, our CBO allows you to state as a given that lowering taxes will raise revenue and to base their projections on that.
I'm pretty sure this is not true; I'm almost certain I remember egg on Republican faces when they were pushing the Bush tax cuts and the CBO completely bitch slapped them with projections showing they didn't have any chance of paying for themselves.
Of course they passed them anyway, because they prefer not to live in a fact-based reality. But I'm pretty sure the CBO called them on it.
Yeah, our CBO allows you to state as a given that lowering taxes will raise revenue and to base their projections on that.
I'm pretty sure this is not true; I'm almost certain I remember egg on Republican faces when they were pushing the Bush tax cuts and the CBO completely bitch slapped them with projections showing they didn't have any chance of paying for themselves.
Of course they passed them anyway, because they prefer not to live in a fact-based reality. But I'm pretty sure the CBO called them on it.
Everyone knows that the CBO is just an arm of reality the liberal agenda.
Yeah, our CBO allows you to state as a given that lowering taxes will raise revenue and to base their projections on that.
I'm pretty sure this is not true; I'm almost certain I remember egg on Republican faces when they were pushing the Bush tax cuts and the CBO completely bitch slapped them with projections showing they didn't have any chance of paying for themselves.
Of course they passed them anyway, because they prefer not to live in a fact-based reality. But I'm pretty sure the CBO called them on it.
The Ryan Budget was scored on the above assumptions.
I think you're overestimating the applicability of the 14th amendment. If it comes in at all it will be as a legal hail mary from the president, and it's not clear that going that route would even avert the most serious repercussions of not raising the debt ceiling.
The 14th Amendment was passed so that the reconstructed ex-Confederates did not crash and burn the federal government out of vengeance for the Civil War. If you look at the electoral maps, I think you can make the argument that this is exactly the situation the amendment was drafted to prevent, just a century and a half later than expected.
I can't avoid thinking that the BBA is nothing but porn for teapers. They have put the constitution as a holy document that is the end-all of all government documents. Getting their core belief written in must give them the teaper equivalent of a nerdgasm.
I also think it is an idea on par with the Bush tax cuts for economic prosperity.
Yeah, our CBO allows you to state as a given that lowering taxes will raise revenue and to base their projections on that.
I'm pretty sure this is not true; I'm almost certain I remember egg on Republican faces when they were pushing the Bush tax cuts and the CBO completely bitch slapped them with projections showing they didn't have any chance of paying for themselves.
Of course they passed them anyway, because they prefer not to live in a fact-based reality. But I'm pretty sure the CBO called them on it.
Everyone knows that the CBO is just an arm of reality the liberal agenda.
Only when it disagrees with the republican narrative. They said it was highly accurate when it claimed that Obamacare didn't save the amount every said it would.
On the plus side, this fight within the GOP might be perfect - if the Tea Party decides they just can't 'reform' the mainstream, they may actually break off into a third political party. That would be fucking perfect and could end up with an actual, reasonable conservative party in the GOP which would benefit everyone in the end.
Except the Tea Party crazies. But, well, fuck them.
To be perfectly fair, being the only empire in history to effectively DECIDE to collapse would be an interesting way to end up in the history books.
Assuming there are history books a hundred years from now.
Think bigger.
At this rate I'm not sure there will be books a hundred years from now.
More topically, is there any word on how the markets are doing? On my way home from the gym last night I saw that the TSX was down, apparently amidst concerns over the debt ceiling situation, but it was just some short blurb in the elevator, and didn't say how much they were down or any other particulars.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
I think you're overestimating the applicability of the 14th amendment. If it comes in at all it will be as a legal hail mary from the president, and it's not clear that going that route would even avert the most serious repercussions of not raising the debt ceiling.
The 14th Amendment was passed so that the reconstructed ex-Confederates did not crash and burn the federal government out of vengeance for the Civil War. If you look at the electoral maps, I think you can make the argument that this is exactly the situation the amendment was drafted to prevent, just a century and a half later than expected.
Why it was created doesn't matter nearly so much as what it says. And it doesn't say what you want it to say. It certainly doesn't say that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional under any normal reading.
It says the validity of the debt of the United States shall not be questioned. Making it illegal to borrow enough money to cover our debt will certainly make people doubt whether we'll pay back the money we owe.
I don't see why that would be so clear; the 14th ensures the full faith and credit of the US government. The debt ceiling forces us to violate the full faith and credit arbitrarily. Why exactly is it so clear that this isn't even potentially unconstitutional? On it's face it's blatantly so.
I'm no constitutional law expert, so I'm genuinely curious why this is so easily dismissed.
Why it was created doesn't matter nearly so much as what it says. And it doesn't say what you want it to say. It certainly doesn't say that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional under any normal reading.
The debt ceiling did not exist until the Great Depression. It was a Republican stunt that was quickly forgotten when WW2 raised its head. What the amendment says is very, very straightforward:
"Section 4. 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
What's the argument that refusing to pay the debts via the mechanism of the 14th Amendment does not violate this?
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
It says the validity of the debt of the United States shall not be questioned. Making it illegal to borrow enough money to cover our debt will certainly make people doubt whether we'll pay back the money we owe.
But that's not in danger of happening. We take in more than enough in revenue to cover all outstanding public debt obligations, and everyone agrees that that will be the first thing that gets paid, even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
But that's not in danger of happening. We take in more than enough in revenue to cover all outstanding public debt obligations, and everyone agrees that that will be the first thing that gets paid, even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
The financial markets disagree. I know the GOP is playing this game of "defaulting on our obligations to U.S. citizens is not the same thing as default," but the rest of the world is not playing their rhetorical game.
I don't see why that would be so clear; the 14th ensures the full faith and credit of the US government. The debt ceiling forces us to violate the full faith and credit arbitrarily. Why exactly is it so clear that this isn't even potentially unconstitutional? On it's face it's blatantly so.
I'm no constitutional law expert, so I'm genuinely curious why this is so easily dismissed.
I don't see why that would be so clear; the 14th ensures the full faith and credit of the US government. The debt ceiling forces us to violate the full faith and credit arbitrarily. Why exactly is it so clear that this isn't even potentially unconstitutional? On it's face it's blatantly so.
I'm no constitutional law expert, so I'm genuinely curious why this is so easily dismissed.
Ditto.
Devil's Advocate:
Could it be argued that only payments on our debt may be authorized in excess of the debt ceiling? IE: We can make good on our debts in perpetuity, but we cannot incur more debt for other reasons.
[Edit] The implication of that scenario being that we could avoid default, but not a federal shutdown; thus it is still not a total solution.
It says the validity of the debt of the United States shall not be questioned. Making it illegal to borrow enough money to cover our debt will certainly make people doubt whether we'll pay back the money we owe.
But that's not in danger of happening. We take in more than enough in revenue to cover all outstanding public debt obligations, and everyone agrees that that will be the first thing that gets paid, even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
I'm no expert but if the budget is law than doesn't that count as well? Can't social security recipients sue if they don't get paid? Aren't we required to pay soldiers?
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
The 14th amendment guarantees that we will honor all legally issued public debt instruments. Whether the debt ceiling is raised or not, we are not in danger of not doing that any time in the near future.
That doesn't mean that the economy won't be tanked by a failure to raise the debt ceiling, and the markets are aware of that. But that doesn't implicate the 14th amendment.
But that's not in danger of happening. We take in more than enough in revenue to cover all outstanding public debt obligations, and everyone agrees that that will be the first thing that gets paid, even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
The financial markets disagree. I know the GOP is playing this game of "defaulting on our obligations to U.S. citizens is not the same thing as default," but the rest of the world is not playing their rhetorical game.
That may well be, but once we have a proper President we could just nuke all the people who claim we owe them money.
It says the validity of the debt of the United States shall not be questioned. Making it illegal to borrow enough money to cover our debt will certainly make people doubt whether we'll pay back the money we owe.
But that's not in danger of happening. We take in more than enough in revenue to cover all outstanding public debt obligations, and everyone agrees that that will be the first thing that gets paid, even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
I'm no expert but if the budget is law than doesn't that count as well? Can't social security recipients sue if they don't get paid? Aren't we required to pay soldiers?
It would take a creative argument and a very sympathetic court to reinterpret the whole budget as "public debt", which has a pretty specific meaning.
I'm no expert but if the budget is law than doesn't that count as well? Can't social security recipients sue if they don't get paid? Aren't we required to pay soldiers?
The bond rating agencies have already said that they consider default on obligations on things like Social Security and federal employee pay to be default. This was in response to the original Republican response that it was only default if we stopped paying international bond holders.
The GOP is still pushing that line and the American media are following along like they do. Start reading outside the U.S., though, and it's clear that Republican tricknology doesn't travel well past our borders.
Posts
more seriously, stuff like that is dependent on an extremely competent and apolitical civil service that won't quietly accept accounting nonsense like the one mentioned in the context of Texas above
It isn't effective as a binding rule to be placed upon a future government that may be hostile to it, because it won't be able to bind such a government. It's more of a rule to bondholders that that's what they're going to do.
I misread. I was looking at the rate of decrease in the 'spending' figure.
Every 7.7 seconds spending reduces by $1000, and revenue increases by $1000 every 2.9 seconds. So every 7.7 seconds deficit spending is reduced by ~$3,650; so at that rate they will be in the black in ~1370 days.
So in the long term they seem set to not spend more than they take in. Or are they claiming this to be the case now. I'm confused as to what you're disputing
BBAs aren't a good idea, but this is the least retarded one I've seen bandied about in quite a while. No mention of capping government spending as a percentage of GDP, no California-style supermajority requirement to raise taxes.
It's a dead-end political game.
You need 38 states. We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that every state that voted for McCain in the last election will vote for a BBA. That's 21, by my count. They'd need to pick up another 17 states. I don't think I'd take that bet.
Since there are better odds of navigating an asteroid field than it passing the senate, it is a moot point. But given that a lot of states swung right in their legislature in the last election and states tend to be even crazier than the federal government, I really don't want it to go to the states.
I haven't seen the current version mentioned, though, so who knows
...
Obviously more evidence of the lie-brul media at work.
I really wish they'd all just die in a fire.
To be perfectly fair, being the only empire in history to effectively DECIDE to collapse would be an interesting way to end up in the history books.
Assuming there are history books a hundred years from now.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I was referring to the fact that spending is higher than revenues. I used the debt clock to provide a link to refute the argument that Texas has a balanced budget that was given earlier.
As for the rate and change of the numbers, you are of course correct. The only objection I have to it is that any debt clock is largely more than a propaganda tool since the change rate relies on nothing ever changing from the immediate present. I don't think the numbers are exact either, but they are decently approximated.
I'm pretty sure this is not true; I'm almost certain I remember egg on Republican faces when they were pushing the Bush tax cuts and the CBO completely bitch slapped them with projections showing they didn't have any chance of paying for themselves.
Of course they passed them anyway, because they prefer not to live in a fact-based reality. But I'm pretty sure the CBO called them on it.
Everyone knows that the CBO is just an arm of reality the liberal agenda.
The Ryan Budget was scored on the above assumptions.
The 14th Amendment was passed so that the reconstructed ex-Confederates did not crash and burn the federal government out of vengeance for the Civil War. If you look at the electoral maps, I think you can make the argument that this is exactly the situation the amendment was drafted to prevent, just a century and a half later than expected.
I also think it is an idea on par with the Bush tax cuts for economic prosperity.
Only when it disagrees with the republican narrative. They said it was highly accurate when it claimed that Obamacare didn't save the amount every said it would.
Except the Tea Party crazies. But, well, fuck them.
Think bigger.
At this rate I'm not sure there will be books a hundred years from now.
More topically, is there any word on how the markets are doing? On my way home from the gym last night I saw that the TSX was down, apparently amidst concerns over the debt ceiling situation, but it was just some short blurb in the elevator, and didn't say how much they were down or any other particulars.
Why it was created doesn't matter nearly so much as what it says. And it doesn't say what you want it to say. It certainly doesn't say that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional under any normal reading.
I'm no constitutional law expert, so I'm genuinely curious why this is so easily dismissed.
The debt ceiling did not exist until the Great Depression. It was a Republican stunt that was quickly forgotten when WW2 raised its head. What the amendment says is very, very straightforward:
"Section 4. 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. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."
What's the argument that refusing to pay the debts via the mechanism of the 14th Amendment does not violate this?
But that's not in danger of happening. We take in more than enough in revenue to cover all outstanding public debt obligations, and everyone agrees that that will be the first thing that gets paid, even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
Enforcing it would require conviction, fortitude and the potential for conflict, and that's something Obama does not do.
The financial markets disagree. I know the GOP is playing this game of "defaulting on our obligations to U.S. citizens is not the same thing as default," but the rest of the world is not playing their rhetorical game.
Ditto.
Devil's Advocate:
Could it be argued that only payments on our debt may be authorized in excess of the debt ceiling? IE: We can make good on our debts in perpetuity, but we cannot incur more debt for other reasons.
[Edit] The implication of that scenario being that we could avoid default, but not a federal shutdown; thus it is still not a total solution.
I'm no expert but if the budget is law than doesn't that count as well? Can't social security recipients sue if they don't get paid? Aren't we required to pay soldiers?
That doesn't mean that the economy won't be tanked by a failure to raise the debt ceiling, and the markets are aware of that. But that doesn't implicate the 14th amendment.
That may well be, but once we have a proper President we could just nuke all the people who claim we owe them money.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
It would take a creative argument and a very sympathetic court to reinterpret the whole budget as "public debt", which has a pretty specific meaning.
The bond rating agencies have already said that they consider default on obligations on things like Social Security and federal employee pay to be default. This was in response to the original Republican response that it was only default if we stopped paying international bond holders.
The GOP is still pushing that line and the American media are following along like they do. Start reading outside the U.S., though, and it's clear that Republican tricknology doesn't travel well past our borders.
The American court system ain't got a say in this. If the world says we defaulted, we defaulted.
The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the international bond market. No one lets the deadbeat set the terms.