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

a reply to: worldstarcountry


When subjecting yourself to ANY FORM of government assistance, you have to be willing to endure a lot of sacrifices.

A client called me last night in tears, because the government can't find a form she's uploaded, and also mailed to them 3 times. As a result, her family's health insurance premium increases from $684 this month, to $2,340 in February.

a reply to: jonnywhite

I agree at this point the only thing we can really do is start printing interest free currency. So the government prints up whatever it needs for the year, including interest on existing debt, then a little more to liquidate the outstanding debt. Then the next year they just print up 2% more to account for inflation.

They can end taxes that way, and liberate all forms of money whatever people want to use. What is killing everything is the controls, that's killing off the real productive economy and everything is just sliding into hell.

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.

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.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
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.

What is your country, and does your government "run out of money" regularly, unless the leaders allow it to keep flowing?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Yes.. the ongoing and increasing U.S. Debt has indeed been "perpetual".. but the drama surrounding the processes related to the budget are time consuming. Our Congress is only in session for 145 days @ year. There's no time for B.S..

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.

originally posted by: MOMof3
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...

It takes a lot of money to win elections, because Americans allow it to be this way. Just like Americans allow American healthcare to be insanely expensive.

originally posted by: MOMof3
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.

You might be able to migrate/move/relocate your family to Norway, if you meet their immigration standards, MOMof3.

originally posted by: dothedew
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

In that case, when the government shuts down all non-essential services, the Treasury should reduce the amount of taxes collected from Americans by a commensurate amount.

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.

a reply to: intrptr

The liberal Anti-America media WANTS the government to shut-down, so they can blame President Trump...regardless of who is really at fault.

originally posted by: carewemust
What is your country, and does your government "run out of money" regularly, unless the leaders allow it to keep flowing?

Britain. The leaders and the government are the same people, by definition.
A budget defeat prompts the automatic resignation of the government, or a fresh election.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: intrptr

The liberal Anti-America media WANTS the government to shut-down, so they can blame President Trump...regardless of who is really at fault.

The gubment is at fault. I heard Ryan during press conference today say there won't be enough money for soldiers pay and childrens medical care.

What cheap shots. They want you to go, oh spend whatever it takes., for the children.

If they said there won't be enough money to pay senators paychecks next month, people would shout, "Shut it Down!!".

originally posted by: Plotus
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.

That's a valid point, but it doesn't happen in corporations and households (for the most part). Is there a government department to make sure that government department heads don't spend "Carte Blanche" right now? After all, they have access to billions of dollars on any given day of the year.

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: carewemust

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

I think its interesting that President Trump wants to bring back pork-barrel/earmarks. Sounds like the New York Deal-maker side of his personality is resurfacing. Well...it worked for him in business. That's for sure.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

The biggest problem with having a REAL budget, is that entitlement programs would have to be cut..significantly. Obama swelled the entitlement roles by a huge amount. For instance, 1 in 5 people are on Medicaid.. It consumes 10% of the entire Federal budget, and its cost is growing rapidly every year. Source: www.npr.org...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
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.

Common-sense tells me the same thing. The government can't "run out of money" as the MSM/Politicians proclaim, when it's taking in $10 Billion dollars a day in revenue, and printing an additional $564 Million every day.

Wrong answer.

Better answer: WHy not have a legal requirement that not only is a budget due prior to the budgetary period (i.e., a couple weeks prior to the fiscal year), but that the net total is maintained. And any departmental variances are signed off on by the cabinet position that directs that department.

I'd also add in that a full revamp of the PO and accounting process is in order, since purchasing and procurement is a ridiculous joke. My former hometown got a $700k APC that had less than 3k miles on it prior to being decommissioned and loaned out to the local PD. That is a purchase that should never have happened.

a reply to: carewemust

Yah but if the government printed it's own currency, then they could pay for everything including the interest on the debt and over time liquidate all of the debt and nationalize the current commercial banking system.

Other banks could start up of course so banking as a profession wouldn't be eliminated just the current banks who are so hopelessly leveraged with debt would be absorbed into the national system.

See Ellen Brown for how this could all work.

www.webofdebt.com...