5 ms·

Love the charts, then scroll to the bottom and "oh, Bitcoin". Sorry but there are other ways. Did you know that the Balanced Budget Amendment (proposal) failed

Love the charts, then scroll to the bottom and "oh, Bitcoin". Sorry but there are other ways. Did you know that the Balanced Budget Amendment (proposal) failed by a single vote in 1995?

akhilcacharya 6y ago
Can't even imagine what current economic recovery would look like if we had a Balanced Budget Amendment under President Ross Perot in '95.
- triangleman 6y ago
  Truly unimaginable.
djur 6y ago
Yes, we narrowly averted disaster. Did you know that amendment required a supermajority to raise taxes?
- triangleman 6y ago
  Not true: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-joint-resolution/1/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-joint-res...
  - djur 6y ago
    That's after it was amended. The original proposal did have a 3/5ths majority requirement: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-joint-resolution/1/text/rh https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-joint-res...
    - triangleman 6y ago
      Fair enough. I know they're just words on paper with escalating levels of authority, and at the end of the day we get the government/money we want/deserve. I personally benefited some $2000/year from the Trump tax cuts that I know my children will have to repay some day at punitive rates, but apparently that's what my fellow citizens want. Without a cultural change, founded on a spiritual change, why should we expect our government, finances, or money to change? I love Hayek but I disagree with that quote at the bottom of the site. A "poison pill" is no solution to our problems.
- erikpukinskis 6y ago
  At this point I kind of wish a supermajority was required for every vote. Then neither party could control legislating over the objections of the other. This trading back and forth every so often thing doesn’t seem to be working great.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    If you had that nothing would ever get done.
  - allemagne 6y ago
    I'm surprised that you think that too much legislating is the problem. No legislation can even happen without bipartisan support unless one party has control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, AND the Presidency. Oh, and unless there's a supermajority in the Senate, the minority party can filibuster most legislation anyway. Sounds like a great way to ensure that compromise has to happen, except that the party in power ends up getting credit for anything that gets done (or doesn't get done), plus to the other side they're dangerous fanatics who can't be trusted. If you're in the minority, why not just ensure that the ruling party (if it can even be called that) fails to accomplish anything? Your side will love blocking their agenda, and if enough people aren't paying attention maybe they'll blame the other side for "not getting anything done". As long as your party can hold out hope for not losing too badly in the next election, the status quo works just fine.
    - EricE 6y ago
      "I'm surprised that you think that too much legislating is the problem." Too much "legislating" is indeed _the_ problem. At least with gridlock they can't screw things up worse than they are. Just look at AB 5 in CA - tailored by labor unions with all sorts of collateral damage and unintended consequences that are still reverberating through CA economy. What's hilarious is that many independent tech writers who were in favor of it initially suddenly got to find out the wisdom of our legislators first hand when AB 5 proceeded to destroy their current business model as an independent, for higher worker. Ha! Delicious irony indeed. Making new laws _should_ be hard. It also would be good if congress started to do their job instead of delegating it to the executive branch. And for every new hair brained law it would be awesome if they were required to at least remove one other one - removing five would be better still. If you think complexity favors you vs. big businesses or special interests....
- EricE 6y ago
  A supermajority to raise taxes would be amazing - government might actually have to be accountable for dollars spent rather than just lazily going back to the trough for more taxpayer dollars. If you don't think our current and rapidly expanding deficit is a real pending disaster...
capnorange 6y ago
Maybe I missed it but I don't see bitcoin mentioned anywhere(other than the ad). However given what happened in 1971, it should be surprising there is not mention of Bitcoin! I interpret this to be an issue with central planning, Balanced budget Amendment still does not remove the root of the problem.
analog31 6y ago
Many of the states have balanced budget provisions in their constitutions (either originally or by amendment) and have growing debt.

Love the charts, then scroll to the bottom and "oh, Bitcoin". Sorry but there are other ways. Did you know that the Balanced Budget Amendment (proposal) failed by a single vote in 1995?

akhilcacharya 6y ago

Can't even imagine what current economic recovery would look like if we had a Balanced Budget Amendment under President Ross Perot in '95.

triangleman 6y ago
Truly unimaginable.

djur 6y ago

Yes, we narrowly averted disaster. Did you know that amendment required a supermajority to raise taxes?

triangleman 6y ago
Not true: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-joint-resolution/1/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-joint-res...
- djur 6y ago
  That's after it was amended. The original proposal did have a 3/5ths majority requirement: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-joint-resolution/1/text/rh https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-joint-res...
  - triangleman 6y ago
    Fair enough. I know they're just words on paper with escalating levels of authority, and at the end of the day we get the government/money we want/deserve. I personally benefited some $2000/year from the Trump tax cuts that I know my children will have to repay some day at punitive rates, but apparently that's what my fellow citizens want. Without a cultural change, founded on a spiritual change, why should we expect our government, finances, or money to change? I love Hayek but I disagree with that quote at the bottom of the site. A "poison pill" is no solution to our problems.
erikpukinskis 6y ago
At this point I kind of wish a supermajority was required for every vote. Then neither party could control legislating over the objections of the other. This trading back and forth every so often thing doesn’t seem to be working great.
- jandrese 6y ago
  If you had that nothing would ever get done.
- allemagne 6y ago
  I'm surprised that you think that too much legislating is the problem. No legislation can even happen without bipartisan support unless one party has control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, AND the Presidency. Oh, and unless there's a supermajority in the Senate, the minority party can filibuster most legislation anyway. Sounds like a great way to ensure that compromise has to happen, except that the party in power ends up getting credit for anything that gets done (or doesn't get done), plus to the other side they're dangerous fanatics who can't be trusted. If you're in the minority, why not just ensure that the ruling party (if it can even be called that) fails to accomplish anything? Your side will love blocking their agenda, and if enough people aren't paying attention maybe they'll blame the other side for "not getting anything done". As long as your party can hold out hope for not losing too badly in the next election, the status quo works just fine.
  - EricE 6y ago
    "I'm surprised that you think that too much legislating is the problem." Too much "legislating" is indeed _the_ problem. At least with gridlock they can't screw things up worse than they are. Just look at AB 5 in CA - tailored by labor unions with all sorts of collateral damage and unintended consequences that are still reverberating through CA economy. What's hilarious is that many independent tech writers who were in favor of it initially suddenly got to find out the wisdom of our legislators first hand when AB 5 proceeded to destroy their current business model as an independent, for higher worker. Ha! Delicious irony indeed. Making new laws _should_ be hard. It also would be good if congress started to do their job instead of delegating it to the executive branch. And for every new hair brained law it would be awesome if they were required to at least remove one other one - removing five would be better still. If you think complexity favors you vs. big businesses or special interests....
EricE 6y ago
A supermajority to raise taxes would be amazing - government might actually have to be accountable for dollars spent rather than just lazily going back to the trough for more taxpayer dollars. If you don't think our current and rapidly expanding deficit is a real pending disaster...

capnorange 6y ago

Maybe I missed it but I don't see bitcoin mentioned anywhere(other than the ad). However given what happened in 1971, it should be surprising there is not mention of Bitcoin! I interpret this to be an issue with central planning, Balanced budget Amendment still does not remove the root of the problem.

analog31 6y ago

Many of the states have balanced budget provisions in their constitutions (either originally or by amendment) and have growing debt.