> I think the debt limit is a good idea as it forces some consensus about spendings Except it doesn't, as seen in the US doing this dance on the brink every ot

> I think the debt limit is a good idea as it forces some consensus about spendings Except it doesn't, as seen in the US doing this dance on the brink every other year. What you actually are thinking of is a spending limit where either constitutionally or by statute you can't pass a budget that isn't balanced to some level. Being able to pass a budget with more spending than revenues and then saying "wait, we have to agree to borrow too" makes no sense > judicial branch (not only attorney general is one of the ministers The attorney general is not strictly considered a part of the judiciary in terms of separations of powers. The role of prosecutor is pretty firmly an executive one based on the model where the legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces them and the judicial checks they're being enforced as written The problem with poland is not as much the system as the fact that they fucked it up by appointing judges illegally. Any system is a free for all if you just break the rules, and parliamentary systems tend to be on average less of a free for all than presidential ones > wanna spend money? - talk to the other side about it That's the point, you already need to talk to the other side in order to spend the money, it's called passing a budget bill. A debt limit just allows you to decouple the debt discussion from the budget discussion, meaning that when it comes up it's either "raise it, we'll see about spending next budget" or "well, guess we're defaulting now"