4 ms·

"They should also vote to raise the debt ceiling (or better yet, abolish it)." Well there is. The whole problem with publications like this is that they like t

by h4xr 13y ago

"They should also vote to raise the debt ceiling (or better yet, abolish it)." Well there is. The whole problem with publications like this is that they like to provide answers without explaining the consequences. The Economist is especially bad since its title proclaims it as an expert but if we did we what it proposes there would be no limit to the amount of debt the US could borrow and thus no limit to the amount of poverty we would leave to future generations. Currently the US accrues 2.5t in tax revenue per annum and spends 3.8t or it overspends 1.3t a year. So it should be clear to anyone with the most basic understanding of math the US needs to cut spending. Raising the debt limit is the exact opposite of that and would be equivalent of trying to lose weight by letting out your belt.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The Economist is especially bad since its title proclaims it as an expert but if we did we what it proposes there would be no limit to the amount of debt the US could borrow and thus no limit to the amount of poverty we would leave to future generations. There's no practical limit to the amount of money the US can borrow. All eliminating the debt ceiling would do is reduce the number of different votes that have to happen to operate the government when running deficits. All spending has to be authorized by a law -- this is often a one-time, long-term act establishing a program -- and appropriated by a law (typically, in "normal" operations, by an annual budget, but sometimes we get periodic CRs for shorter periods, and some things are subject to multiyear appropriations.) The combination of what is authorized and appropriate vs. the revenue from taxes (also set by laws passed by Congress) sets the level of borrowing that is going to happen to fund it. The debt ceiling is essentially redundant with other Congressional action, and either is completely irrelevant (under most normal conditions) or, as has been the case recently, is an excuse for stunts which do nothing but harm the country's credit. > Currently the US accrues 2.5t in tax revenue per annum and spends 3.8t or it overspends 1.3t a year. So it should be clear to anyone with the most basic understanding of math the US needs to cut spending. Ignoring that that's not really the right two numbers to compare (since even if you look at the right comparison, the ratio between debt payments and GDP, there is a clear need to do something about balance) the suggestion that that has to be cutting spending ignores the revenue side; given that the overall trend over the past 50ish years has been of tax cuts -- particularly on the richest -- its not entirely unreasonable to suggest that to the extent that the tax/spending balance needs to be addressed, no small part of that is on the tax side. > Raising the debt limit is the exact opposite of that Raising the debt limit is essential even though long-term tax/revenue balance needs to be addressed (the target shouldn't be naive budget balance, but establishing a stable and reasonable long-term average debt:GDP ratio, and good practices that let it run above that average when government spends countercyclically during economic downturns, and below it when government spending is less necessary during private sector expansions.)

by h4xr 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The Economist is especially bad since its title proclaims it as an expert but if we did we what it proposes there would be no limit to the amount of debt the US could borrow and thus no limit to the amount of poverty we would leave to future generations. There's no practical limit to the amount of money the US can borrow. All eliminating the debt ceiling would do is reduce the number of different votes that have to happen to operate the government when running deficits. All spending has to be authorized by a law -- this is often a one-time, long-term act establishing a program -- and appropriated by a law (typically, in "normal" operations, by an annual budget, but sometimes we get periodic CRs for shorter periods, and some things are subject to multiyear appropriations.) The combination of what is authorized and appropriate vs. the revenue from taxes (also set by laws passed by Congress) sets the level of borrowing that is going to happen to fund it. The debt ceiling is essentially redundant with other Congressional action, and either is completely irrelevant (under most normal conditions) or, as has been the case recently, is an excuse for stunts which do nothing but harm the country's credit. > Currently the US accrues 2.5t in tax revenue per annum and spends 3.8t or it overspends 1.3t a year. So it should be clear to anyone with the most basic understanding of math the US needs to cut spending. Ignoring that that's not really the right two numbers to compare (since even if you look at the right comparison, the ratio between debt payments and GDP, there is a clear need to do something about balance) the suggestion that that has to be cutting spending ignores the revenue side; given that the overall trend over the past 50ish years has been of tax cuts -- particularly on the richest -- its not entirely unreasonable to suggest that to the extent that the tax/spending balance needs to be addressed, no small part of that is on the tax side. > Raising the debt limit is the exact opposite of that Raising the debt limit is essential even though long-term tax/revenue balance needs to be addressed (the target shouldn't be naive budget balance, but establishing a stable and reasonable long-term average debt:GDP ratio, and good practices that let it run above that average when government spends countercyclically during economic downturns, and below it when government spending is less necessary during private sector expansions.)