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

a reply to: carewemust

In 1995 Clinton gave a great speech on immigration and national security,in 2017 Trump gave a great speech and if you still have a president in 2039 he or she will give a great speech too.Its all done to convince the punters all is well its all theatre its all bs.

An outsider's point of view;
These stalemates have been built into the American constitution, as recent history shows. If they are a flaw, you must blame the Founding Fathers.
In any sensible system, a government that could not get its budget through the legislature would cease to be the government, giving place to one that could.

a reply to: carewemust

Oh its been "PERPETUAL":

Perpetual wars are expensive. They kill lots of people and nations budget. But we gotta go get us some sick welfare people and Mexicans. It’s all their fault.

a reply to: MOMof3

Maybe we can trade hyper partisan dingbats for some Mexicans.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Perpetual wars are expensive. They kill lots of people and nations budget. But we gotta go get us some sick welfare people and Mexicans. It’s all their fault.

Are you a career politician? Reason I ask is because you seem to be in a different reality with those comments.

a reply to: watchitburn

That won’t help. It takes lots of money to win elections. No matter who you are, you have to sell your soul to the same rich donors with same stale rhetoric. The country can be on fire or drowning or being poisoned, but...but...swamp creatures, Mexicans, welfare queens, abortion, guns...

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Ever since trump brought Norway up, I’ve been doing some research. I want an economy like theirs. Socialist democrats. Free of perpetual war and religious ideology. I am angry we are such a s hole, Norwegians laugh at immigrating here.

we can't have a perpetual budget.... That would make too much sense, and we can't have the .gov being logical now, can we?

Keep the annual budgets, and there will always be an annual talking point to play politics about, something for the "representatives" to pretend to listen to people about and simultaneously screw us over.

'Murica

a reply to: carewemust

There is no drama around national debt, except in the media.

They want you to think they are so concerned they are threatening to shut down the gubment if they can't come to an arrangement trying to balance it ...

..but really, behind the scenes, they spend spend spend, like theres no tomorrow.

Who cares, its all Monopoly money anyway.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: carewemust

In 1995 Clinton gave a great speech on immigration and national security,in 2017 Trump gave a great speech and if you still have a president in 2039 he or she will give a great speech too.Its all done to convince the punters all is well its all theatre its all bs.

Maybe President Trump will suggest a perpetual budget, like Trump Corporation (and the rest of us) uses.

Why Not Have a PERPETUAL U.S. Budget.


Because with one there would be no reason to not spend Carte Blanche on anything and everything.... the source would always be there, a cornucopia of funds.

AND ALL FIAT funds at that.

Actually it is funny, if you think about it. One side or the other objects, and then poof amazing that they were able to come up with a compromise at the last minute to save the budget and then pats on the back all around for a job not well done.

a reply to: carewemust

Congress is supposed to develop a budget every year, I don't think they've had an 'official' budget since sometime during Bush's administration (could be wrong but I think I'm right).

I think instead they've gone to this debt ceiling limit game as a substitute to having an actual budget. What they really need to do is put a permanent cap on the debt, no more extensions and then balance their spending with taxes. But they really won't do that for several reasons, the biggest one I can think of is that they include deficit spending in their GDP calculations.

So if they stop adding in deficit spending into GDP then our GDP plummets. For instance during Obama's reign he deficit spent around 6-7% every year, while GDP was reported as 2-3%. That means without deficit spending added into GDP, GDP would have been negative around -2% to -3% every year. 4 consecutive quarters of negative GDP is a depression, and they can't have a depression in a centrally planned economy like ours because that would be admitting their failure.

a reply to: carewemust

You are absolutely correct. A budget should be about changes to government expenditure, not if current expenditure goes ahead or not.

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: carewemust

I think instead they've gone to this debt ceiling limit game as a substitute to having an actual budget. What they really need to do is put a permanent cap on the debt, no more extensions and then balance their spending with taxes. But they really won't do that for several reasons, the biggest one I can think of is that they include deficit spending in their GDP calculations.

Another reason they won't do this is because right now about 78% of all taxes are going to entitlements, social security, medicare, welfare, federal pensions and interest on the national debt. That means to balance the budget they have to reduce spending, since the entitlement spending is more or less fixed we are talking a reduction in size of the federal government greater than 50%.

Lulz.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Not all government expenditure is included in GDP calculations. Only that which is on final goods and services same as for private sector.

a reply to: carewemust

That would make it harder for new incumbents to skim their take off the top before annual manipulations take effect?

originally posted by: eManym
It seems like a waste of time but IMO the budget is put in place as a control to prevent uncontrolled spending. Its comparable to a family debating whether to withdraw from the savings account to cover expenditures.

Of course the government's savings account is limitless. Everyone that creates an expenditure for the government will get paid what is owed after the withdrawal is made.

The US Government has an endless supply of assets for expenditures and emergencies unless it goes bankrupt which is very unlikely for the USA. It only takes legislation to get what they need.

I don't think they're controlling spending. Look at our debt. 70% of our budgeting--I think-- is entitlements (welfare,etc). Welfare and warfare together are breaking our bank. When someone is hurting/dying we want to spend to help them. When we're threatened by a enemy, we want to protect ourselves. Those're two very strong impulses. We SHOULD be drastically increasing taxes but we're not. Yet adding to our debt is ultimately adding to our taxes and we'll pay more longterm than if we had just risen taxes.

It's too late to control overspending. That ship already sailed.