So in short the problem is we have the congress we are asking for?
If the american voter wants irresponible behavior from congress I don't think there is any technical fix that can correct that.

Yes, pretty much.


If we limit the irresponsible behavior that they are able to take, I think it would help.

And exactly howc do you create or enforce a limitation nobody wants?

I think silveroak hit it on the head. Start with the voters. It's our fault, ultimately.

I'm not huge on this plan. It does seriously limit flexibility. If we accept Keynesian economics (as the government basically has), we need to be able to spend, even at a deficit, during tough times. As long as it averages out, that's okay, but you can't exactly enforce a 'this term gets lots of spending, the next term gets lots of taxing' policy.

My inclination is to make congresspeople personally liable for some percentage of the annually accumulated debt. Added $1bn to the debt? Pay a fine of $10,000. It doesn't in any way tie their hands, but it does give an awfully strong motivator.

Realistically, there's little-to-no chance of it getting enacted whether its popular or not.  Unless there's a secret member of congress using the forums!  ;)  But the unlikelihood of it being enacted isn't necessarily a reason not to discuss it (and doesn't necessarily mean its a bad idea).  It may be an entirely intellectual exercise, but who knows?  Maybe something will spin off of it, and be such a good twist on it that we really could get someone's attention with it?

Slightly more practically (though not much), I suppose we could take advantage of the very problem that we're trying to solve: that people think they want a balanced budget.  It's only once you put out what getting it will mean for them that they back off.  So, focus the press for it on the budget-balancing part.  Perhaps also on taking away power from irresponsible congress people as well?  No matter what political stripe an american is, they can usually be counted on to enjoy sticking it to politicians! ;)  When pitching it at democrats, sell it as a way to stop from cutting taxes and running up huge debts.  When pitching it to republicans, pitch it as a way to stop democrats from spending on big entitlement programs and running up huge debts.



Agreed.  But how to do anything about it?


Yeah, this is the biggest fault I see with it (well, besides it being completely pie-in-the-sky and not at all likely to ever be an option anyway).  It gives politicians one year to deficit spend, really, but sometimes that wouldn't be enough.  It might be that we'd need a formal mechanism for borrowing, but pin the payback to a specific year, rather than just "the future."  So that when we take out the loan, we specifically say "we're going to pay this back with taxes from year XXXX", and then in that year, the taxes go up, and you can see on the government webpage that, oh, the reason taxes jumped this year is because we decided 5 years ago to borrow a bunch of money form china.  The danger there, though, is that it could just become commonplace, and we're back to where we started.  You could see why your taxes were high, but if it's just a long list of "Because we borrowed in year XXXX" it sort of loses its effect.


Yeah, that's the problem.  This method just enforces a balanced budget (kind of), but by making the taxes the dependent variable rather than the spending, it keeps politicians hands freer than we see at the state level.


Besides the enjoyment of causing members of congress some financial pain, I'm not really sure what this buys us.  If its a large enough 'fine' to make them really avoid it, then we end up more or less with the same problem as my plan (ie, we'll be unable to deficit spend in tough times--senators aren't going to take a big hit like that just out of their concern for the country).  If it's not big enough to phase them, they'll just count it as a cost of doing business and carry on.

What we really need to do is to make the voters liable for electing politicians who run up the debt year after year, which is more or less why my plan tries to do.

At the end of the day, the problem is that you can put "2+2=1" on the ballot, and people can vote for it, but that doesn't make it so.  We vote for politicians who promise us impossible things because we'd really like them to be true, but they simply can't be done.  But the fact that the promises are unrealistic doesn't seem to keep the politicians making them from being elected.  This method ties to get around that, but taking away some of the freedom that politicians currently have to try to avoid financial reality.  It lets them spend as they like, or they can reduce taxes, but they can't really do both the way they can now.

and there we identify the nail- putting 2+2=1 on the ballot doesn't make it so- but people vote for it because they buy into it. Hence what our forefathers identified as the most signifigant issue in  a democracy- it requires an educated electorate.
It is equally obvious that electors benefit from an uneducated electorate.
If we solve that fundamental paradox we will solve the budget as a secondary effect. The big question is why does the electroate support elctors who undermine education?

We let them run up the deficit until other nations cut us off. Then the US uses gunboat tactics to threaten off debt-collectors while the currency crashes. Millions go hungry. Over the course of two to three generations, society is rebuilt and, for at least another generation, the valuable lesson is impressed upon the general public.

Meanwhile we all move to communes in Australia.



Yeah, but don't undervalue that joy >)

Which brings up the question- is it really debt or tribute that we pretend we will pay back?

!! A good question. Lately I've heard it described more and more as the latter.

Unfortunately, no matter how you cut it, I think it will lead to the loss of prominence as the US as #1.

I find it amusing that you use the future tense.

In reply to silveroak (msg #82):

The reports of America's death have been greatly exaggerated.

You are the only one talking death. The statement was loss of prominance as an economic pwer. This was objectively a hallmark of the Bush presidency, when illegal mmigrants fled to Mexico in search of jobs.

In reply to silveroak (msg #84):

I enjoy very literal minds.  I was speaking metaphorically.  As in the death of our economy is greatly exaggerated.

Perhaps you would like to explain how illegals going back to their countries of origin, which I doubt occurred in any meaningful numbers, means that the US has lost its economic power?

So once again I have to justify not what I said but your exageration of what I said? Loss of prominance if a pretty low threshold, especially compared to reversing the flow of immigrants due to a national economic depression. heck the fact the US had a depression (as defined by objective economic measures) pretty well exceeds the level of 'loss of prominance' by several orders of magnitude.

In reply to silveroak (msg #86):

Actually, you have to prove that illegals were leaving the US as a result of the loss of economic prominence.  If anyting was an exaggeration I believe it was that statement.

If you objectively consider GDP and manufacturing we are still number one in the world.  Economic hard times have hit the global economy and, objectively speaking, we are in the same boat as everyone else.

US is still #1. My evidence for this is how loudly I will shout at you that the US is #1 if you try to deny this basic fact.

In reply to katisara (msg #88):

No one is shouting.  Here is a link for you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08...s/global/16yuan.html

Do you see where China overtook Japan as the second largest economy?  Guess who is first?  The numbers are out there.  I tend to think that this group, considering their intelligence, can use a search engine.

Like Silveroak's illegal immigrant theory.  I did some searching and found that illegals ARE moving back.  But the reasons for this is because there is actually more WORK back in Mexico with all the companies opening up manufacturing down there as well as the rise in stricter laws regarding illegal immigration in the border states.  My conclusion is that Silveroak is using it as an excuse to blame Bush.  Hardly objective.

Can I shout anyway?

In reply to katisara (msg #90):

Absolutely!

U S A #1!! U S A #1!!

Being "#1" is a very silly concept.  (I know you guys are mostly joking, but I'm saying for those who are more serious.)

For example, China may have a robust economy, but the average lifestyle and poverty level of average people (not to mention their freedoms and hope of economic prosperity on an individual level) is quite low in comparison.

I had the same experience in Japan.  Sure, the technology there is great, but what goes into that?

1) A culture where you fit into the crowd and just work hard your whole life without much hope of really being an individual (which is why old people in Japan, last I checked, have the highest suicide rate in the world, not to mention depression and suicide among youth who are harassed).

2) Medical care that is far below U.S. par.  Facilities are rundown, often using secondhand equipment to help offset the costs of socialized medicine.

3) Population congestion means that most people live in very tiny spaces that we would sneer at in America.  They considered my 1300 square foot house in Tokyo to be "hiroi!" (very big).  You don't realize what a lifestyle cramp this is until you move from America to there.

4) Homogeneity:  With the vast, vast majority being all the same race, culture, and background, it not only leads to a dull life, but one where people feel psychologically boxed in to act and be a certain way.

The Japanese live primarily through escapism (manga, anime, karaoke, drinking, etc.).  It's not terrible by any means, but it's not usually what people picture it to be.

So the question is:  Would it be worth it to make those personal sacrifices just to label your country as "#1"?  And what does "#1" really mean?  Freedom?  Wealth? Individualism? Or simply economic prosperity as a nation?

In reply to Heath (msg #93):

The joke was the shouting.  The reality is that the American economy is the leading economy amongst nations.  That is all.  When people speak of economic decline it stands that America has a long way to go before we even hit number two.

That sounded dirty.

Beavis and Butthead aside, your points seem to be pertaining to the Japanese.  They have struggled through industrialization while trying to maintain their culture.  Considering all your points I believe the question should be: Noting the differences between the top economies, do your points have anything to do with Japan's placement in economic ranking?

Because you make it sound like individuality and lifestyle are sacrifices you need to make in order to be prosperous.  I would say that America's economic ranking comes from the fact that we reward individuals, at least we used to, and let the ranking be what it is.

On a side note, having Japanese friends and family, I don't believe the picture is as grim for the Japanese as you make it out to be.

I'm all for a more educated electorate.  I think it'd have lots of benefits in lots of different areas.  If you have an idea on how to get it, let me know, and there's very good chance I'll support it.

That said, I'm not sure this is entirely an issue of education.  There are plenty of highly educated people (in terms of years in school, degrees held, etc.) who believe politicians who tell them that every tax cut will pay for itself and not increase the deficit.  Or that if we can't afford to give raises to government employees that increasing their pension instead won't lead to any problems.

I'd say it's more just a fundamental problem with the fact that people are much happier to support things that benefit them than things that adversely affect them.  As long as people are allowed to pick "stuff for me, paid for by someone else," they'll sadly tend to do so over and over, whether they're educated or not.  It's more a problem with human nature, I'd say, than with education (though again, I'm all for education).  Which is why the system I propose takes away that option, and prevents the that bit of human nature from biting us in the backside.

My point is the economic rankings are not all they're cracked up to be.  If we overvalue them, we lose the real value, which is the lives of the citizens of the country.  If both are in lockstep, then a good economy is great, but where citizen well-being is sacrificed for economic "greater good," being #1 isn't necessarily #1.

That's not what I said.  What I said is that economic prosperity at the cost of the individual is probably not worth the sacrifice.  A good governmental system can have both.  There is no need to sacrifice one for the other; in fact, when one is sacrificed for the other, that's when it's time to start worrying.

Be specific please.  I never said anything was "grim;" I merely said there were trade offs.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:38, Tue 15 Feb 2011.

As a slight aside, here's an example of something similar to what I was talking about with my idea:
http://www.nytimes.com/package...19-budget/index.html
This actually depicts what Obama's proposed budget would spend money on, rather than what our taxes are paying for like in my idea, but the idea is more or less the same.