Balanced Budget Amendment

[swansont]

Fiduciary? really? So you want to use a term reserved for people in banks?

I've used fiduciary and I don't work in a bank. Sarcasm really isn't a substitute for an argument.

[Realitycheck]

Fiduciary is a term meant to represent a position of trust, ie., the govt. is entrusted to use the peoples' money responsibly, which in this case fits the meaning quite well.

[amanda more]

I've used fiduciary and I don't work in a bank. Sarcasm really isn't a substitute for an argument.

 

How is it sarcasm?

 

The business of government is to govern. It isn't a bank. And if it was even close, just how strong a word is it that harkens to banks in our current climate.

 

Fiduciary is a term meant to represent a position of trust, ie., the govt. is entrusted to use the peoples' money responsibly, which in this case fits the meaning quite well.

 

The business of government is to govern. How simplistic to be so reductionist to think of it as this piggy bank. It is like reducing a human being to the nutrients coming in, the build up in the system and what comes out. So emphasizing the input output of government is immature. We elect representatives, it is not some patriarchal monarchy that sits and does. We control it. For those who are here then, it should be possible to not parrot some kind of odd gobblygook no matter how often repeated. Greenspan said he made a mistake. It is time others actually examine the rhetoric.

 

I just informed a retiree that his stockbroker had lied. You can change out of the stock market into FDIC insured in your retirement fund without penalty. I suggest others who worry about government money, right now before close of the stock market tomorrow, now consider their own.

 

 

 

[doG]

And if it was even close, just how strong a word is it that harkens to banks in our current climate.

A fiduciary duty (from Latin fiduciarius, meaning "(holding) in trust"; from fides, meaning "faith", and fiducia, meaning "trust") is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust regarding the management of money or property between two or more parties, most commonly a fiduciary and a principal. Congress owes the highest fiducial responsibility to the People. They are not there to represent themselves. They are not there to raise their own spending limit with our money and then max out the debt to the limit over and over and over ad infinitum. The Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States and it owes it to the people to not ruin that credit by using it irresponsibly.

[amanda more]

A fiduciary duty (from Latin fiduciarius, meaning "(holding) in trust"; from fides, meaning "faith", and fiducia, meaning "trust") is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust regarding the management of money or property between two or more parties, most commonly a fiduciary and a principal. Congress owes the highest fiducial responsibility to the People. They are not there to represent themselves. They are not there to raise their own spending limit with our money and then max out the debt to the limit over and over and over ad infinitum. The Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States and it owes it to the people to not ruin that credit by using it irresponsibly.

 

Again this reductionist view sees only beans in and beans out. That is not the intelligence resident in government. It isn't a computer or a simple bean counter. Those who only can think this way will find it impossible to take a real view.

 

"A more perfect union" is not equal to "a better counted union."

[swansont]

How is it sarcasm?

 

The business of government is to govern. It isn't a bank. And if it was even close, just how strong a word is it that harkens to banks in our current climate.

 

Sounded like sarcasm. If it wasn't I apologize, but that makes the statement even more puzzling. The government handles money collected in taxes. They are entrusted with spending it responsibly. Article I section 9 of the Constitution says No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. The statement and account is so that the public can see how its money is being spent. (In reality, the government wastes a lot of money in keeping these accurate accounts)

 

The business of government is to govern. How simplistic to be so reductionist to think of it as this piggy bank. It is like reducing a human being to the nutrients coming in, the build up in the system and what comes out. So emphasizing the input output of government is immature. We elect representatives, it is not some patriarchal monarchy that sits and does. We control it. For those who are here then, it should be possible to not parrot some kind of odd gobblygook no matter how often repeated. Greenspan said he made a mistake. It is time others actually examine the rhetoric.

 

I think that claiming a reductionist view misrepresents the argument. doG said "The people will never get the fiduciary responsibility they deserve from Congress unless it is forced on them" At no point was it claimed that this is the only responsibility of Congress. But I think it's silly to deny that this isn't one of the responsibilities of Congress.

[amanda more]

Sounded like sarcasm. If it wasn't I apologize, but that makes the statement even more puzzling. The government handles money collected in taxes. They are entrusted with spending it responsibly. Article I section 9 of the Constitution says No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. The statement and account is so that the public can see how its money is being spent. (In reality, the government wastes a lot of money in keeping these accurate accounts)

 

 

 

I think that claiming a reductionist view misrepresents the argument. doG said "The people will never get the fiduciary responsibility they deserve from Congress unless it is forced on them" At no point was it claimed that this is the only responsibility of Congress. But I think it's silly to deny that this isn't one of the responsibilities of Congress.

 

As I say. just keep up your tune of fiddling while the economy tanks. You are misdirected and playing the wrong song.

 

The only rationale is that you can take solace in having some company. Seeking refuge in odd platitudes and wrongheaded direction is very common in difficult times. Hence making them almost catastrophic times should this style of groupthink become the norm.

 

An escape into "because everyone I like does it" should have been left back in high school.

 

 

 

[swansont]

As I say. just keep up your tune of fiddling while the economy tanks. You are misdirected and playing the wrong song.

 

Then make an argument about why I am misdirected. The point I made was that the government collects taxes and spends money as part of governing, so I don't see how misdirected I can be about that; I'm pretty sure it's true.

 

The only rationale is that you can take solace in having some company. Seeking refuge in odd platitudes and wrongheaded direction is very common in difficult times. Hence making them almost catastrophic times should this style of groupthink become the norm.

 

An escape into "because everyone I like does it" should have been left back in high school.

 

These are very vague sentiments, but there's no substance to them.

 

I want to point out that doG, Realitycheck and I corrected you on a technicality (definition of fiduciary), and that does not necessarily mean that any of us endorse each others' position on a BBA. It would be a mistake to automatically assume that we do. (i.e. One can point out flaws in an argument and still agree with the conclusion. Or one can disagree.)

[doG]

"A more perfect union" is not equal to "a better counted union."

Actually it is. In the current economy when government revenue is down because of the quantity of people that are out of work and paying no taxes, and the number of people working at reduced wages paying less taxes and the number of businesses closed that are paying no taxes then is the time to keep the budget and debt to a minimum. Our government should have been preparing better for bad times when times were good but as always it maxed out our credit even then. The country is not living within its means and this is directly the result of Congressional actions. They need their hands tied.

[Realitycheck]

 

The business of government is to govern. How simplistic to be so reductionist to think of it as this piggy bank. It is like reducing a human being to the nutrients coming in, the build up in the system and what comes out. So emphasizing the input output of government is immature. We elect representatives, it is not some patriarchal monarchy that sits and does. We control it. For those who are here then, it should be possible to not parrot some kind of odd gobblygook no matter how often repeated. Greenspan said he made a mistake. It is time others actually examine the rhetoric.

 

I just informed a retiree that his stockbroker had lied. You can change out of the stock market into FDIC insured in your retirement fund without penalty. I suggest others who worry about government money, right now before close of the stock market tomorrow, now consider their own.

 

Haha. "the government, by the people, for the people."

[amanda more]

Haha. "the government, by the people, for the people."

 

So when the government is imperfect you become so much more comfortable beancounting.

 

Sit in a nice room. Count stacks of beans. Laugh at all those ridiculous people who live in the real world.

 

Then make an argument about why I am misdirected. The point I made was that the government collects taxes and spends money as part of governing, so I don't see how misdirected I can be about that; I'm pretty sure it's true.

 

 

 

These are very vague sentiments, but there's no substance to them.

 

I want to point out that doG, Realitycheck and I corrected you on a technicality (definition of fiduciary), and that does not necessarily mean that any of us endorse each others' position on a BBA. It would be a mistake to automatically assume that we do. (i.e. One can point out flaws in an argument and still agree with the conclusion. Or one can disagree.)

You lack substance.

 

Corrected is incorrect. You waylaid the essence of the discussion with superfluous misdirection. Stop platitudes. Stop party lines. I ask that you think.

 

Not thinking is terribly simplistic and lacks substance.

 

Hooverists there I've said it again. Counter that term. Explain how any of the proposals wouldn't be as stupid as the methods causing or at least deepening the Great Depression.

 

You can't. Economists want to hide but that is because they are in agreement and their positions are funded by these same jokers that recently profited.

 

Reread Huckleberry Finn if you have to, Just because your golf partners pat each other on the back it does not show validity. This country USA had everyone thinking racism was God's way. Rethink. Now, how vague is this? If you never saw an economics book then I would suggest you do that first so you can then judge what has substance.

 

 

 

Actually it is. In the current economy when government revenue is down because of the quantity of people that are out of work and paying no taxes, and the number of people working at reduced wages paying less taxes and the number of businesses closed that are paying no taxes then is the time to keep the budget and debt to a minimum. Our government should have been preparing better for bad times when times were good but as always it maxed out our credit even then. The country is not living within its means and this is directly the result of Congressional actions. They need their hands tied.

 

Thank goodness for the recent history of "reverse Robin Hood," Follow the money. The middle class was overly burdened with cash to the government while the rich got richer. Forty five percent of American wealth is held just like what used to be Banana Republics with a precious few.

 

America has been smart enough to raid the treasury instead of percentage wise defacto the wealthy at even the same rate as the poor. They are a vast untapped sea. If we don't tap that to at least the same burden as the rest of the population then any history buff can see instability in the future. My bets are on the upper 2% to wise up. It is in their own self interest to stabilize the current climate in the USA.

[Realitycheck]

is a beancounter by trade. Does anybody else feel so stalked?

 

In case you didn't read the sign that the sign holder was carrying, no doubt, constantly bitching, attacking people, and calling people names gets you banned.

 

Something tells me you were in that much of a hurry to leave. I personally don't care why. Life isn't always fair. I suggest some Norman Vincent Peale. He's been around for a while, but he just keeps on ticking.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Realitycheck

[swansont]

You lack substance.

 

Corrected is incorrect. You waylaid the essence of the discussion with superfluous misdirection. Stop platitudes. Stop party lines. I ask that you think.

 

Not thinking is terribly simplistic and lacks substance.

 

 

 

Where, exactly, was I incorrect? Does congress control money as part of governing, or do they not?

 

Thinking based on false premises is fruitless.

[doG]

Thank goodness for the recent history of "reverse Robin Hood," Follow the money. The middle class was overly burdened with cash to the government while the rich got richer. Forty five percent of American wealth is held just like what used to be Banana Republics with a precious few.

Well, first I'll challenge you to prove that.

 

America has been smart enough to raid the treasury instead of percentage wise defacto the wealthy at even the same rate as the poor. They are a vast untapped sea. If we don't tap that to at least the same burden as the rest of the population then any history buff can see instability in the future. My bets are on the upper 2% to wise up. It is in their own self interest to stabilize the current climate in the USA.

This is the part you don't seem to get. No one is raiding the treasury. The treasury is broke. The country is surviving on deficit spending. You could take all the money from the top 2% and it wouldn't put a dent in our debt or effect the rate that we're building debt. It would however kill all of the jobs those people provide, kill them dead. BTW, the top 10% already pay 70% of all taxes collected, so your statement about burden is flat out wrong too.

Edited August 6, 2011 by doG

[swansont]

This is the part you don't seem to get. No one is raiding the treasury. The treasury is broke. The country is surviving on deficit spending. You could take all the money from the top 2% and it wouldn't put a dent in our debt or effect the rate that we're building debt. It would however kill all of the jobs those people provide, kill them dead. BTW, the top 10% already pay 70% of all taxes collected, so your statement about burden is flat out wrong too.

"all taxes collected" (your claim here) is not the same as "income tax", which is what the link represents. That misses more than half of taxes collected; payroll taxes are about the same amount. ($899B vs $865B) 70% of that is just under $630B. Raising the marginal rate by ~3% is about a 10% increase in that revenue. $50B is not insignificant.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png

 

The total marginal tax rate for incomes above ~$375k (35% income tax bracket) is not much more than for someone making $100k (28% bracket) because you stop the 6.2% Social Security withholding at about $105k. So so total marginal tax rate is actually lower for those in the 33% bracket than in the 28% bracket.

 

The claim that raising taxes on the wealthy would hurt job creation is oft-repeated but seemingly never supported. So I'll challenge you to prove that. We've had the policy in place for about a decade. Where are all the jobs?

[jackson33]

swansont, doG may have not been clear, to YOUR satisfaction, but the offered link WAS. You and your darn word games are getting a little tiring, IN MY OPINION. Read the chart, it's really very clear.

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08inratesharesnapgraph.pdf

 

The claim that raising taxes on the wealthy would hurt job creation is oft-repeated but seemingly never supported. So I'll challenge you to prove that. We've had the policy in place for about a decade. Where are all the jobs? [/Quote]

 

Since nearly 70% of jobs are or were created by small business and ALL U.S. business is subject to investments of some kind, anything taken from them will have a direct effect on what will be used to hire people and/or invest. Since this is simple logic or common sense, you should be the one doing to prove anything. To add a little, during good times, economically speaking, Government will increase taxes to purposely decrease growth, generally targeted.

Edited August 6, 2011 by jackson33

[doG]

The claim that raising taxes on the wealthy would hurt job creation is oft-repeated but seemingly never supported. So I'll challenge you to prove that. We've had the policy in place for about a decade. Where are all the jobs?

The jobs are where there is demand for them. As employers need help then there are jobs. Without demand you certainly don't expect employers to simply create jobs where they have nothing for those people to do. OTOH, businesses try to maintain the profit margins and when taxes drive up their cost then their only choice is to cut cost elsewhere to maintain that margin. If hey can cut it in materials then they cut it in labor.

 

Right now employers, people just like you and I, are hurting in this economy just like everyone else. The Government is feeling the loss of revenue on all sides but taking more from employers to shore up irresponsible spending does not sound like a good financial strategy. It's time for someone to take a hard look at our needs versus our wants because right now we just can't afford those wants.

[swansont]

The jobs are where there is demand for them. As employers need help then there are jobs. Without demand you certainly don't expect employers to simply create jobs where they have nothing for those people to do. OTOH, businesses try to maintain the profit margins and when taxes drive up their cost then their only choice is to cut cost elsewhere to maintain that margin. If hey can cut it in materials then they cut it in labor.

 

Right now employers, people just like you and I, are hurting in this economy just like everyone else. The Government is feeling the loss of revenue on all sides but taking more from employers to shore up irresponsible spending does not sound like a good financial strategy. It's time for someone to take a hard look at our needs versus our wants because right now we just can't afford those wants.

I agree that employers won't create jobs if there is no work for the people to do. What I don't see is how cutting their taxes accomplishes that. We have been told for some years that it would.

 

However, many employers are flush with cash. Publicly-traded companies have been sitting on record amounts of cash. So can we admit that this is not what creates jobs? It's not that simple?

 

swansont, doG may have not been clear, to YOUR satisfaction, but the offered link WAS. You and your darn word games are getting a little tiring, IN MY OPINION. Read the chart, it's really very clear.

 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08inratesharesnapgraph.pdf

 

Yes, the chart is quite clear. Crystal. Which raises the question of how one could confuse INCOME tax with TOTAL tax. It's not a word game. It's a factor of TWO in the amount of tax collected based on individuals' income. That bottom 50% who only pay 3% of income tax still have 6.2% of their wages taxed for social security. Someone making $250k in wages has less than 3% of their income taxed for SS (for income it's probably far less, because as income goes up, chances are a larger fraction of your income is comprised of non-wage/salary components, e.g. capital gains, on which taxes other than CG aren't collected)

 

When you equate income tax with total tax you are ignoring HALF of taxes collected from employment. I suppose that would be OK if nobody was complaining about the deficits from the programs they support. But if you don't, then it's dishonest.

 

Since nearly 70% of jobs are or were created by small business and ALL U.S. business is subject to investments of some kind, anything taken from them will have a direct effect on what will be used to hire people and/or invest. Since this is simple logic or common sense, you should be the one doing to prove anything. To add a little, during good times, economically speaking, Government will increase taxes to purposely decrease growth, generally targeted.

 

So where are the jobs? Show them to me. We've had the low tax rates in place for about a decade, and even during the best Bush years we had tepid jobs growth. During Bush II, the net job growth was basically ZERO, and real income fell. So I don't put much stock in the simple logic, because I think it's simplified to the point where it's wrong. The problem is more nuanced.

 

You can create jobs without cash on hand. You can borrow it, and interest rates are low. So even if businesses didn't have wads of cash (which they do — proof), they could borrow cheaply and expand. Not having money or access to money doesn't seem to be what's holding them back.

[jackson33]

Today everybody is setting on whatever cash they can, including business or more to the point the larger Corporations. Traditionally publicly traded business, either pay's a dividend, reserves funds for growth or both. Apple Computer (holding largest reserves) for instance pay's no dividend but the value of Apple has increased from around 18.00 in the late 90's to 374.00 last Friday. The reasons they don't spend, a said 78B$ for growth is not demand, they can't produce all they could sell now, but the uncertainties of what in general is going on with the US Government. They ARE building factories overseas, much as GM, Ford, GE and many others, because that uncertainty is perceived more economically sound elsewhere, than in the US.

 

What I don't see is how cutting their taxes accomplishes that. We have been told for some years that it would.[/Quote]

 

To your point swansont, to smaller business or where the final tax bracket is critical and determined by allowable deductions, any increase, either in the percentage or those deductions (both under discussion) can be a whole lot more than what the difference between 36 and 39.6%.

 

Larger Corporations for all practical purposes, other than competitive reason are unconcerned today, because they can simply pass on cost, taxes simply one.This is hard to explain, so I'm just going to give you the tax rates.

 

http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html#ci

 

So where are the jobs? Show them to me. We've had the low tax rates in place for about a decade, and even during the best Bush years we had tepid jobs growth. During Bush II, the net job growth was basically ZERO, and real income fell. So I don't put much stock in the simple logic, because I think it's simplified to the point where it's wrong. The problem is more nuanced.

 

You can create jobs without cash on hand. You can borrow it, and interest rates are low. So even if businesses didn't have wads of cash (which they do — proof), they could borrow cheaply and expand. Not having money or access to money doesn't seem to be what's holding them back.[/Quote]

 

Fair questions, it's complicated, but a few thoughts;

 

Under Bush 43, 3.7M NET private sector jobs were created, which included one recession ending in 2001, another beginning toward the end of his tenure, not to mention 9/11 and it's financial effect on the general economy.

 

The Tech bubble burst, really did take out a great number of jobs, that have never been replace, even if, as with industry, they had already begun moving off shore, which gets into trade treaties and quick accessibility to markets. Many foreign corporations, remember were moving into the US during the late 90's, for the same reasons.

 

I don't think population figures are included or the 100's of thousands of underground jobs, generally from illegal's whom were hired and never reported. There were less people retiring, needing to be replaced (ageing population), think today that figure is around 150K per month and growing each year since about 1970.

 

A whole lot IMO is simply increased productivity, where computers or robotics have replaced millions of people. For instance Amazon has 33,700 Employee's, while Wal Mart requires well over a million, providing the same services.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AMZN&ql=0

 

As for RISKING money, whether you have it or need to barrow to increase or start a business, is really that simple, risky. Not meaning to go back "on topic", "Balanced Budget Amendment", S&P's downgrade will not help the situation and only the BBA, would have prevented it, IMO. Seriously would you barrow money today say on a Restaurant Business, knowing only 1 in 10 ever show a profit, in today's business environment. I wouldn't and that's about all I've ever done.

[Essay]

Without demand you certainly don't expect employers to simply create jobs where they have nothing for those people to do.

 

Right! ...and cutting taxes on the rich doesn't seem to relate to the "demand" of which you speak. Without a new commodity with which to buy sell and trade, it's hard to keep an economy growing. The hula hoop was a good example about 50 years ago, for one year. Televisions and cars, color TV's and hotter cars, and housing and better housing kept things going through the 60's and 70's until cheap energy made consumerism a slightly less than sustainable commodity on which to base the economy. At that point, loans became a commodity which allowed the US economy to expand an order of magnitude, especially when the banks took over for the S&L's as globalization proceeded. After the second loan bubble deflated, computers and the dotCom revolution filled the need for a commodity during the 90's. After that, only loans could generate enough volume to sustain the bubble of the 2000's--and home loans became the basis for a much larger volume of derived "loans" [the only new commodity] as we have now learned.

 

But it is the volume of the commodity (which for whatever-- crazy or not-- reason is in demand) that determines the growth rate of the economy, isn't it?

 

I know about the supply and demand perspective on limited commodities, but it is NEW commodities which allow for growth... over the level of subsistence, imho... with NEW equating to a large potential for growth, if not for other reasons too.

 

We've got cars and tv's and electronics and food coming out of our ears, so to speak. About the only new commodity that we need is exercise....

 

Anyway, it is from that perspective that I suggest our problem is lack of a new commodity. The right commodity (assuming large, ongoing demand) would generate jobs and industries to collect, process, and refine the commodity, designing it for specific purposes...

...theoretically, right?

 

For instance, a new gold rush in some region of the US, or a new source of energy that was non-polluting, and still safe and convenient, would jumpstart a growth spiral; and it would attract much of the several trillion dollars that business and banks (each) are sitting upon.

===

 

Do you agree that we need a new commodity, or do you think we can just keep tweaking the parameters on our house of cards that is too big to fail? Anyone?

===

 

~ sorry to jump in... and I do realize "it's more complicated than" ...my little rant might suggest, but overall...

wouldn't a good solid, sustainable NEW commodity go a long way toward solving the basic problems?

 

[Realitycheck]

I see lots of hesitancy in the bourgeoise to create jobs in protest to the social programs being advanced that will supposedly milk their silver linings, as a form of silent protest.. I know this isn't really news, but it seems pretty irresponsible. I know that the govt. isn't exactly renowned for efficiency, but I seriously believe that the medical field is more than equally not capable of controlling costs. The high esteem of our medical system is coming at an exceedingly exhorbitant cost, so what other options are there? Kill all of the poor people, shop out all of the cheap labor to Indian telemarketers and central American immigrants, and open the floodgates to madness and mayhem. Sons of the civil war, see ya! Yeah, right. Get a grip.

Everybody is waiting to see if the tea party poopers will ever amount to anything more than the boy who cried wolf, where the saying goes."Choke! Choke! Choke! Just don't choke me and my boss." It's amazing how strong the human neck turns out to be, so the net effect results in the Uni... err Warring States of America. Didn't we elect a black president for a reason? Or was it just a token of our need to appear just and fair? Or are we dumping bags of tea in the harbor in order to protest the very nature of the concept unity? I remind you that the Democrats have been around since the beginning, and while the Republicans were ushered in with Abraham Lincoln, boy, have they changed.

[swansont]

Clinton's administration saw 23 million jobs created — it almost matched the population growth. Bush II saw 3 million. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

 

Bush II did the worst job of creating jobs in the last 60 years (it's even worse if you look at the jobs created normalized to population). All the hand waves in the world doesn't change that. The Bush policies didn't work.

[Realitycheck]

Also, consumer confidence has been down in the dumps for quite some time now. If we ever divorce ourselves from these wars, it will be interesting to see how long we can get around to working on ourselves for a change.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Realitycheck

[amanda more]

Also, consumer confidence has been down in the dumps for quite some time now. If we ever divorce ourselves from these wars, it will be interesting to see how long we can get around to working on ourselves for a change.

 

The wars actually employ people. We are in the toilet even with a wartime economy.

[Realitycheck]

This is an easy conclusion to arrive at, especially considering the war machine of ww2, but the military were going to be employed regardless. Reservists are called out, opening positions for others, but this can only be considered to be a nominal amount. It pales in comparison to the overall depressive effect on the economy - the price of oil, consumer confidence, depression in the stock market, just plain doom and gloom.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Realitycheck