Why Not Have a PERPETUAL U.S. Budget. The Shutdown Drama is Rediculous.

a reply to: carewemust

Whenever a politician of any party tells you that the US government is running out of money then they are either an idiot or they think you are an idiot (possibly both).

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: jonnywhite

What is killing everything is the controls, that's killing off the real productive economy and everything is just sliding into hell.

If you're referring to "regulations", they're steadily being rolled back. So frequently in fact, that this process no longer makes the news.

a reply to: carewemust

According to chart most of the spending is on children, disabled, and elderly, 80%. The remainder is poor women’s birth, opioiods addiction. Who would you cut? Why aren’t we a happy and healthy country like Norway if capitalism is best?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: carewemust
1.) Have any of the past government shut-downs affected you in a negative way? The Mainstream Media is using dire words to describe how bad it will be for this nation, if the government starts closing down on January 20th.

Sort of--I have a federal job, and I am considered "essential personnel," meaning that any time that there is a furlow associated with a shut down, I still have to work, even though we are technically not getting paid. The majority of the federal work force does not have to work during a furlow.

That said, eventually we get paid, but the kicker is that those who did not have to work get back-pay, too, so while it's appropriate that I get paid for work that I did, it's pretty sh**ty to see those who did no work suddenly get paid vacations that are not taken out of their annual-leave totals (and to know that taxpayers are paying these people to have time off).

2.) Why can't the Federal Government operate with a perpetual, ongoing budget, that's adjusted as needed? Tax revenue is perpetually coming in to the U.S. Treasury, and $560 million is printed by the U.S. Treasury, every single day. Uncle Sam never really "runs out of money".

The constitution. It's a good read.

The government should mimic how we run our households. As long as money is coming in, we pay the bills and buy things. The time, manpower, resources and political bullchit that's devoted to this U.S. budget ritual, which occurs AT LEAST once every year, is rediculous!

No, our households should be run how the government was designed to be run, where they form a budget and then must stick to it. Instead, the average household acts like the current ways that government is run, where they basically spend their whole paycheck in small increments without looking at the whole picture, or saving up for a rainy day, or living within their means instead of constantly increasing deficit spending and debt.

If our congress would act appropriately, our government wouldn't be like this. This is why many of us call for a balanced-budget amendment to the constitution, that states that the federal government MUST live within its means and quit spending more than it takes it.

Some people argue against that and say that credit (debt) is a good and necessary thing--those people are idiots.

Thanks for providing so much insight SlapMonkey! It's always a pleasure reading feedback from someone who's actually on the "inside". Other members are saying that the Federal Government hasn't had a BUDGET in a long time. If that's the case, why do you feel that we (families) should emulate the Federal Government's spending habits?

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: carewemust

Right, but it is disruptive to families who work for the government to have to work without a paycheck for a while. I guess it's all good if they get reimbursed and it doesn't go on for too long.

The longest shut-down was 21 days, under Bill Clinton in 1995-1996. Maybe that's when Clinton started getting in trouble, due to too much time on his hands?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: carewemust

No , not someone looking at 70 in a couple of years. But if I were 40 years younger, I’d go find a soul mate there.

I understand. Well, work hard to get a Congress and President that's suitable to you. At age 68, you're still YOUNG by today's standards.

a reply to: carewemust

Like Bernie. That will not happen in my lifetime.

a reply to: carewemust

The federal government always has a budget--that's what continuing resolutions are, even though they are lazy budgets and short-sighted.

I think that you're misunderstanding what I said--I said that the average family should do their budget like the federal government was designed to create a budget, not how the federal government has devolved into doing their budgets. From what I've come to understand, the government was originally designed to (a) create budgets for spending money, and (b) provide an audit of such spending to the general public for review.

This is how households should do things--you make a budget with money that you already have, and you stick to it, checking all receipts and expenditures to ensure that you're not being frivolous with your money or causing you to 'go into the red.'

Our nation has had its highs and lows as it pertains to the stewardship of our federal coffers, but generally stated:

In our nation’s early years, Congress controlled the budget process. According to historical data produced by the Office of Management and Budget, the federal budget was in a state of surplus until 1850. For the next 50 years, there was a national deficit related to costs incurred by the Civil War and Spanish-American War, and the 1890s recession. Then, until the World War I era, the budget was mostly balanced, but debt related to the war and the addition of the national income tax as a budget source made the budgeting process more problematic.

In its official history, the House notes that changes in how budget matters were considered led to complications after the Civil War. “The Appropriations Committee was established to fund programs, while Ways and Means retained jurisdiction on tax policy. House leadership and other committees also tried to influence the appropriations process, and the lack of coordination over the years led to high deficits and the implementation of the federal income tax in 1913,” it says.

constitutioncenter.org

That's a good and decently short read on the topic, but to summarize it, the power of the budget was originally set with The House per the constitution, then some power given to the president to propose budgets on an annual basis, and then power taken back by The House with the creation of the Congressional Budget Office that provided them with a way of researching and proposing their own budget...if you wanted to know all of that.

As that link points out in the very last paragraph, continuing resolutions should only be a temporary Band-Aid while final issues of annual-budget proposals are ironed out. Unfortunately, we have become a nation that runs on CRs now, and we have lost our way of what it means to budget our spending and to be good stewards of our federal dollars, especially when we consider historical abuse of taxation and money printing.

And disappointingly, households are following that plan, with many not even budgeting at all, and using credit cards and loans as ways to 'print' their own money and live under a constant spending deficit. But if both institutions--the fed gov't and the modern household--would get back to fiscal responsibility in the way that it was designed to be (and works quite well), we wouldn't find ourselves in such messes

In Fiscal Year 2017, our nation had a budget deficit of $666,000,000,000 (give or take a few hundred-million), meaning that we spent two-thirds of a trillion dollars above what our national revenue was--which, by the way was a record high at $3,300,000,000,000. (And there are those who actually claim that it's not a spending problem, but a revenue problem...gimme a damn break...spending was at a record high as well)

On top of that, at the end of FY2017, we were sitting on a national debt totaling $20,240,000,000,000.

That is insane, as that is 613% of what the most recent annual revenue was. Maybe claiming that as being retarded would be more appropriate, even if it's non-PC. It takes a pretty minimal mind to think that such a thing is okay to do to the American people.

If people ran their households exactly like the government does, every bank in America would go under. We desperately need to return to fiscal sanity, both in our modern government and modern households.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Government budgets are not in anyway like household budgets. There is no need or advantage to running a balanced budget and it's generally detrimental to the economy.

No, it's not, if the government is run correctly. Did you know that, prior to 1850, our federal government ran on a budget surplus, even without an income tax?

Yes, there are plenty of approaches with mental gymnastics that will show that government debt and over-spending is "a good thing," but it's not, and especially not in the extremes that we're doing it currently.

Since you replied to my comment, I'll assume that you read my last sentence...it's a valid point. The only reason that people claim what you do is because it has been then norm for over 150 years, therefore it must be okay, and efforts must be made to establish why such a norm is not only okay, but even advantageous. That's a logical fallacy.

The federal government's intended role is not to "stimulate the economy" by taking its citizens' money (by force), spending it all and then some from other countries, and then having such a relatively high unemployment and under-employment rate while racking up unsustainable debt and dysfunctioning (TM) on a 120% spending spree (at least during last fiscal year).

Again, if you think that this is a viable fiscal policy, you should not be discussing this issue with anyone.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: carewemust

What is amazing is that when the government shuts down, congress keeps getting paid.

That and back pay for all Govt Employees, it's like getting a free holiday.

Just for the record, there's a difference between "the govt printing money" and "the govt having the money to fund its responsibilities". When we talk about the govt printing money, that's dealing with the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. However it's Congress and Congress alone that's constitutionally given the power to allocate money to federal programs and institutions (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 ):

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

In other words, only Congress can set a federal budget. So even if the federal govt used all of the money that it prints (which isn't the case but more on that later), it would still be strictly up to Congress to allocate that money to different programs and agencies. Congressional budgets can include all kinds of legal decisions like shrinking or growing different govt departments.

However, every new Congress will have completely different priorities (a "new" Congress happens every 2 years). Those new priorities are reflected in a new budget. Passing continuing resolutions is the closest we get to a "perpetual US budget", which is what's been going on for the last 2 months. But think about it politically. Why would Republican voters want a Republican controlled Congress to keep the same budget allocations as a Democratic controlled Congress? They wouldn't, would they? That's why they'd hypothetically demand a new budget once Republicans controlled Congress, since a Republican inspired budget would likely spend vastly different amounts towards different programs. And the exact same thing would happen if Democrats regained control of Congress. And if there's a presidential election, the President's supporters would expect the new budget to reflect the new President's campaign promises, even if that President's goals are different from that Congress' goals. Hence the constant need for new budgets.

One more thing. What do you think happens to the money that's printed by the Federal Reserve after it's loaned to the Treasury Dept? Investors from around the world purchase that money as federal debt. If you own a money market account, you're one of those investors. 401k's, annuities, and large investment banks also invest in federal securities (like T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds). As do foreign sovereign wealth funds, companies that want a safe place to park their money, many large institutional investors (like large universities), individual investors who want a safe place to park their money, etc. Even other govt agencies & programs purchase that debt. Social Security is one of the largest, if not the largest, govt agencies or programs that own federal debt.

People keep completely ignoring the investment aspect of government-backed currency, even though it's the most important part. The US Dollar is so widely used and accepted around the world because of this aspect. ETA: Or to be more blunt, central bankers are so powerful because the investment aspect allows them to single-handedly control a specific currency's supply on a global scale.

Just imagine if you were given the sole authority to create "Carewemust Dollars". If you could convince an entire country to only allow your "Carewemust Dollars" as its currencies, you'd be powerful. If you could convince that country to pay you interest in order to borrow "Carewemust Dollars", you'd be filthy rich. But if you could convince the govts, companies, and investors from around the world to use "Carewemust Dollars"as their main currency in international trade, you'd be immeasurably rich. Countries would literally trade you their gold deposits in order to get more "Carewemust Dollars" to use for trade. Brilliant, huh?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The US government didn't run a continued surplus up to 1850 although it did in aggregate over the time period. Which is entirely irrelevant as neither the monetary system not economy are remotely comparable to almost 200 years ago.

There are no mental gymnastics required just an understanding of macroeconomics. You find only a tiny minority of professional economists who would support a balanced budget. The debate is around levels and composition of deficit and debt, not that there should be none.

I would say it is entirely the governments responsibility to stimulate the economy as required and evidence of last 80 years would certainly support that.

Counter cyclical spending is well understood in economics, the issue has been it's under use. Largely as a result of politicians believing or pretending to believe the myth that Government budgets are like households.

In terms if I should be discussing fiscal policy. You will I trust forgive me if I value my qualification in economics and years working in financial services over the opinion of random bloke online.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: carewemust

Whenever a politician of any party tells you that the US government is running out of money then they are either an idiot or they think you are an idiot (possibly both).

Mostly its the news media who are idiots. They're regurgitating the "will run out of money in ____hours unless..".

a reply to: SlapMonkey


Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, most Americans don't care as much as you do. Elected politicians continually overspend with almost no blow-back from the public.

I've heard warnings about how our deficit is a "ticking time bomb" for a couple of decades now. Has anyone stated when that time-bomb will explode?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: carewemust

Whenever a politician of any party tells you that the US government is running out of money then they are either an idiot or they think you are an idiot (possibly both).

Mostly its the news media who are idiots. They're regurgitating the "will run out of money in ____hours unless..".

I think the media, politicians and even many economists are guilty of speaking down to the general public.

They assume that people are unable or unwilling to understand the actual economics.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, most Americans don't care as much as you do. Elected politicians continually overspend with almost no blow-back from the public.

I've heard warnings about how our deficit is a "ticking time bomb" for a couple of decades now. Has anyone stated when that time-bomb will explode?

Deficits by themselves are neither good nor bad. They depend entirely on the economy at the time.

There is certainly no ticking time bomb.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you for providing your insights, I agree wholeheartedly.

Deficit spending is nothing more than a naked short on the economy.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Keynesian nonsense.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: ScepticScot

Keynesian nonsense.

You are 50% correct.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


Thanks for explaining the intricacies of what happens after the government prints it's daily $564 million quota.

It's interesting that Bill Clinton was the last President to deliver a budget SURPLUS. But something went terribly wrong after he left office. According to this article, all the predictions of his surplus growing ever larger, deficits resumed, and ballooned.

What erased the Clinton Surplus: www.businessinsider.com...