The great debt limit debate ...

[oceanchild]

How about this - I don't think we even need a debt ceiling. If it's in place to control spending, then what is the budget process for? It's redundant and pointless. We lived without until 1917 and I don't know of any other country who has one.

Yeah, that was the point of the article I posted a ways back. It said that Denmark has one too. So there's that.

I think in general that we have put so many restrictions on the people we elect to govern, that it is getting harder and harder to actually govern. And I think the candidates we are getting might be a reflection of that.

[SoonerTexan]

I think in general that we have put so many restrictions on the people we elect to govern, that it is getting harder and harder to actually govern. And I think the candidates we are getting might be a reflection of that.

What do you mean? I'm really curious to hear what the bureaucrat has to say! I think you understand this better than anyone

[oceanchild]

This is just a working theory. Nothing scientific. But at the state level we have all these constitutional amendments... requiring certain amounts of the budget go to education, for example, or restricting tax increases or requiring supermajorities to pass things. And at the federal level you have the entitlement programs, the debt ceiling, etc. I mean, a lot of that isn't new, but when the economy is weak the restrictions become more pronounced. And any one thing might be a noble intention, but the cumulative effect is telling legislators that they have to balance a budget, but they can't touch 75% of it or whatever. I truly believe most people who go into politics do it because they want to improve something, and when those people see how tied their hands are going to be, they start to wonder why they should bother. So you get more people who are in it for power and name recognition, because the people who want to do good don't feel like they can in politics.

Like I said, just a theory.

[Vishenka69]

I completely agree with everything Kris said, absolutely everything. I'd be curious to see if we could implement a brand new Congress/Senate as per Jenn's suggestion. I also think Julia's theory is very interesting.

I'd support an increase in any kind of tax rate if it went across the board and not just toward those who make over a certain amount, regardless of what that amount is and if it touched me personally. I know NYC plays around with sales tax on clothing/shoes under $100 every few years by implementing it and then taking it away, depending on how the city's budget is doing. How come this can't be done on a larger scale for say a whole state?