[logifail]

> Congress authorizes say 10T to spend. Over the next years the president spends 7T and then the coffers run empty

I'm not sure what to understand by politicians "agreeing 10T of spending" if everyone involved knows the financing has a hard stop at 7T.

That's not agreeing 10T, that's agreeing 7T. Plus a 3T wishlist.

[lesuorac]

> if everyone involved knows the financing has a hard stop at 7T.

Well, technically they don't know there is a hard stop at 7T. Since revenue (taxes) and expenditures are very separate things it could've been at 8T or say 11T but if it was at 11T we'd have a surplus and so this conversation would've never happened.

When you pass a bill requiring the president to do something there is no requirement to justify how anything the bill will be paid for.

Similarly, you can pass a bill adjusting the tax code without explaining where the additional revenue will go to or in the case of a decrease what programs will be removed.

---

Business works very similar to this as well. Divisions are given budgets to spend but those budgets aren't in lock-step with revenue.

[logifail]

> When you pass a bill requiring the president to do something there is no requirement to justify how anything the bill will be paid for.

It could well be that pretty much everyone outside the USA is reading that description - and indeed the rest of this thread - and thinking "sorry, but in this instance the US system is broken".

> Business works very similar to this as well. Divisions are given budgets to spend but those budgets aren't in lock-step with revenue.

Umm, if revenue falls during a financial period, would corporate budgets not be adjusted? A division claiming "you handed us the budget, we're damn well going to spend it to the last cent, up to the CFO to figure out how to finance it" isn't exactly best practice.