http://www.correntewire.com/bust_out_the_republican_approach_to_governance

http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/episode/season2/episode23.shtml

Herewith from the Encyclopedia of Credit:

Bustout
The intentional act of driving a company into insolvency in order to extract as much of the assets as possible form the company for the use of the operators.

A bustout is a planned bankruptcy (See Insolvency.) or insolvency Under the Balance Sheet definition of insolvent in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is insolvent when the value of a debtor's assets is exceeded by the debtor's liabilities. Balance Sheet A financial statement listing the assets, liabilities and owner’s equity of a business entity as of a specific date. definition of insolvent in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is insolvent when the value of a debtor's assets is exceeded by the debtor's liabilities. . It is a criminal activity. A bustout typically starts with small orders being placed and paid promptly. The goal of the conspirator(s) is to gain the trust of trade creditors. The criminal will spend as much time as necessary to convince a creditor A person, business or governmental agency with a claim against a debtor or debtor's business. claim A right to payment or other equitable remedy in the event of a breach of contract. against a debtor or business entity that owes money. or debtor's business. clai A right to payment or other equitable remedy Relates to the judicial means or court procedures by which legal and equitable rights are enforced. in the event of a breach of contract. m against a debto or business entity that owes money. r or debtor 's business. to establish an open account Open account, no draft drawn. Transaction is payable when specified. draft A negotiable instrument that calls for payment of money. The drawer (or seller) orders in writing for the drawee (or buyer) to pay a specific amount of money to the drawer on a certain date. Also called a bill of exchange. drawn. Transaction is payable when specified. draf A negotiable Quality belonging to a document to transfer ownership of money, goods, or other items of value specified in the document by endorsement and/or delivery of the document. endorsemen Writing one's name upon paper for the purpose of transferring the title The exclusive rights, powers, privileges and immunities to property, real and personal, tangible and intangible. . t and/or delivery of the document. instrument A right to the payment of money such as agency notes, commercial pape The unsecured promissory notes of large, financially sound corporations. r, T-Bills, certificates of deposit (CD's), banker's acceptances and repurchase agreements. that calls for payment of money. The drawer The person, company, or bank that creates the draft and receives payment. (or seller) orders in writing for the drawee The person, company, or bank upon which a draft is drawn. (or buyer) to pay a specific amount of money to the drawer on a certain date. Also called a bill of exchange (See Draft.) . t drawn. Transaction is payable when specified. . The criminal plans to "max-out" the credit line Credit that will be or has been granted up to a specific amount usually for a given period of time, as in the case of a bank line of credit. , and to exceed it if possible toward the end of the scam.

A typical bustout scam will last for a few months. An elaborate bustout might last a year. The end game of the bustout scam is the most important to the criminal. The scam artist begins to delay payments to creditors, often making and then breaking payment commitments --- all the while pocketing the money A medium of exchange; coined or stamped currency. received from the sale of products received on open account terms. Up to the end of the scam, the criminal will always be on the lookout for another supplier that will offer open account terms.

When the supply of goods arriving on open account terms dries up and before creditors close in, the bustout criminal typically either files for bankruptcy protection or skips town.

support a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
....
I challenge you, if you object
to my idea, to name your own proactive economic idea
that you think democrats could run and win election on.
All of the ideas I propose should be popular. Furthermore, they have the
great advantage of forcing republicans, if they object, to defend the
indefensible: budget deficits ad infinitum, consumer interest rates
far above the rate of inflation, an international "race to the
bottom" for wages, gouging the middle class with the AMT, and taking
food from the mouths of poor innocent babes to pay for country club
memberships.
Support a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
This is the lynchpin of all of the other programs. It
is inoculation against any republican "tax and spend" charge. And it
is the only way to prevent a return of "borrow and squander" mal-
economics the next time the republicans return to power. It will
bring over into the democratic camp those republicans and
independents (think Andrew Sullivan and William Barrett) who have
distrusted the democrats on fiscal policy. And it simply has to be
done.
DeTocqueville famously predicted that the downfall of
America would be when the citizens realized they could vote
themselves money out of the public purse. Little did they realize
that far from being a populist Peronista style looting of the
treasury, instead it has been the richest plutocrats who have stolen
from the public. Most of us probably remember the book "Bankruptcy
1995" that was written by a blue ribbon team assembled during the
1980s in response to the Reagan deficits. The book was a best
seller, and sufficiently convincing that its subject matter was front
and center in the 1992 presidential election, and the 1993 tax bill
passed by democrats without a single republican vote, that ultimately
balanced the budget by 2000. We also know that as soon as the Repugs
returned to power they set about wrecking any semblance of federal
fiscal responsibility, in a manner that has been likened by posters
on this blog to a mafia-style "blowout". We simply cannot allow it
to ever happen again. The only way to prevent it is a balanced
budget constitutional amendment.
I won't get hung up on particulars in this post. I will
say that any such amendment would have to have 3 elements: (1) it
would have to be counter-cyclical, allowing deficits in times of
recession or emergency, and pay for that by requiring surpluses in
times of plenty (I seem to remember something on this score being
mentioned in some important book, the Bibble, Booble, something like
that..) (2) an independent administrative group similar to the
Federal Reserve would have to be set up to hold Congress' feet to the
fire re those criteria; and (3) there would have to be automatic
immediate review by the Supreme Court (who could delegate to a
referee) to overrule obvious hackery not founded on prudent discretion.
I repeat: there is no alternative. Otherwise, the
moment a democratic majority is lost in Congress, the repugs would
undo all of our good, just as the 1990s fiscal prudence has been
undone by Bush and his Congress. And just as it was in 1992, it's a
winner.
The reason I am beating the drum that it must be written into the constitution, is simply this: look what happened after 2000: we had 8 years of the grownups running the government, with financial discipline. Then the Texas Mafia moved in, and raided the bank.
If we don't build this into the constitution, the same thing will keep happening over and over.
In order to enforce budget discipline, you need immediate, speedy review by the (Supreme) court as a matter of course. If they rule the budget unconstitutional, proportional cuts are automatically made until congress re-passes a constitutional one.
Secondly, as I indicate above, an independent agency (similar to the Federal Reserve) with appointments by each house of Congress and the President can set forth the discipline markers (e.g., we have a boom, we want a 2% surplus).
Again, I repeat, IT HAS TO BE DONE Grover Norquist et al have ensured that there is simply NO OTHER WAY.
You can't entirely eliminate the sleight of hand with words like "emergency" but you can reduce it by means of having an independent agency involved in the process (again, similar to the Federal Reserve). If, say, the House, Senate, and Presidency each got to appoint 3 members on staggered three year terms, such an independent agency would be far less likely to fall prey to the kind of problem you suggest.