• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican senators push for balanced budget amendment

OhReally?

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
129
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Republican senators push for balanced budget amendment – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

CNN said:
More than a dozen Republican senators announced Thursday they would push for a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to pass an annual balanced budget.
"It's an historic day for the Republican Party. We all agree on something," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, joked, as he spoke about the proposed amendment that has the support of all 47 Republican senators.

"A balanced budget amendment will make us do here what everybody has to do at home," Graham said during a news conference on Capitol Hill.
Previous attempts to pass a balanced budget amendment have failed, but backers hope they’ll fare better this year because of public concern over growing deficits.
The press conference was originally scheduled for earlier in March, but was postponed when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, decided to push for a unanimous Republican front for the amendment.
The amendment would require a balanced budget, a two-thirds majority to raise taxes, and three-fifths to increase the debt limit. Additionally, the proposal would limit government spending to 18% of GDP, which is below the average of 21 percent over the last 41 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank.
The Republican proposal does allow for exceptions to a balanced budget in times of war or military conflicts, but does not allow for an exception in times of economic crisis. Critics argue that would mean it would be more difficult to pass a stimulus program during a recession.
"It is about the most irresponsible action imaginable," said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "It would virtually ensure that an economic downturn would end up as a deep depression, by erasing any real ability of the government to pursue countercyclical fiscal policies and in fact demanding the opposite, at the worst possible time.”
The hurdles for adopting a constitutional amendment are high. Two-thirds of the House and Senate must vote in favor of an amendment and then at least 38 states must ratify it.

Very interesting. I wish that I could agree with this proposal, but changing the rules to approve spending seems to be a huge problem considering our tendency to be so evenly split.

If they took out the two-thirds to increase taxes, I'd be more willing to support the legislation. The failure to take out such a provision would pass legislation that has nothing to do with a balanced budget and everything to do with destroying the ability of the federal government to respond.
 
Not going to happen. Democrat Senate won't pass it and Obama would never sign it, because it goes against his plan to destroy the economy so he can push his Socialist agenda.
 
Not going to happen. Democrat Senate won't pass it and Obama would never sign it, because it goes against his plan to destroy the economy so he can push his Socialist agenda.

Well the Democrats in the Senate aren't going to pass it because all of the moderate Democrats who would be interested have been voted out. Obama wouldn't sign it but I don't think it has anything with some conspiracy theory to destroy the economy or push a socialist agenda. Frankly, any agenda by virtually any American politician is a little bit "socialist".
 
What happens to bills that don't pass? Can they just be shelved as is? Then pulled out and voted on again at a later date...say 2012-2013 when they wil pass for sure?
 
That is not fiscally responsible in the least! It seems like being GOP simply means doing everything in your power to keep taxes from being raised. What the hell has happened to that party?
 
What happens to bills that don't pass? Can they just be shelved as is? Then pulled out and voted on again at a later date...say 2012-2013 when they wil pass for sure?

They just die and someone, if motivated, will introduce them in later sessions. But I'm not so sure that this would pass in 2012-2013 either. To be frank, the Republicans aren't so good at follow through on their promises of fiscal responsibility.
 
That is not fiscally responsible in the least! It seems like being GOP simply means doing everything in your power to keep taxes from being raised. What the hell has happened to that party?

I tend to agree with your policy analysis. If taxes were directly linked with spending, we would have a balanced budget. The more we spend the more we tax, the less we spend the less we tax.
 
They just die and someone, if motivated, will introduce them in later sessions. But I'm not so sure that this would pass in 2012-2013 either. To be frank, the Republicans aren't so good at follow through on their promises of fiscal responsibility.

Well, I'm still optimistic that this congress will be different. :)
 
That is not fiscally responsible in the least! It seems like being GOP simply means doing everything in your power to keep taxes from being raised. What the hell has happened to that party?

I thought libertarians were for really small
government. Was I wrong?
 
Well, I'm still optimistic that this congress will be different. :)

Got some of that Hope and Change spirit eh? Let me know how that works out for ya. It worked for the liberals pretty well. :roll:
 
Well, I'm still optimistic that this congress will be different. :)

I wish that I shared in your optimism. We just ended a period not to long back where the Republicans had the opportunity and failed to act. And even if the Republicans were to pass the legislation as is, it would cause political and social chaos.
 
Republican senators push for balanced budget amendment – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



Very interesting. I wish that I could agree with this proposal, but changing the rules to approve spending seems to be a huge problem considering our tendency to be so evenly split.

If they took out the two-thirds to increase taxes, I'd be more willing to support the legislation. The failure to take out such a provision would pass legislation that has nothing to do with a balanced budget and everything to do with destroying the ability of the federal government to respond.

Exactly. Requirements for super-majorities are prescriptions for no action which means not addressing the pressing issues of our day.
 
Republican senators push for balanced budget amendment – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



Very interesting. I wish that I could agree with this proposal, but changing the rules to approve spending seems to be a huge problem considering our tendency to be so evenly split.

If they took out the two-thirds to increase taxes, I'd be more willing to support the legislation. The failure to take out such a provision would pass legislation that has nothing to do with a balanced budget and everything to do with destroying the ability of the federal government to respond.

I cannot support this because of the rules regarding new taxes. New taxes should have the same vote as cutting spending.
 
HAHAH Republicans pushing for a balanced budget... that is so hilarious!

Funny how they had 6 years of total domination of the US politics and this NEVER came up and they spent like drunken sailors in a whore house. But now that they are in opposition and bare a huge part of the blame for the cluster**** the US is in, then all of a sudden they are back to the "balanced budget" crap. Freaking hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
While I believe the nation needs to work toward fiscal consolidation and debt reduction for the medium-term and beyond, I don't believe such an amendment is necessary or wise. It is not necessary, because providing budgets that are balanced does not require such an amendment. It does require an abundance of political courage. It is not wise, because there could be times other than war or national emergency where a budget might not be balanced e.g., raising taxes and/or cutting spending in the face of a severe recession to compensate for a recession-driven sharp decline in tax revenue would exacerbate the recession.
 
I think it's funny to say you want to pass a bill to balance the budget. There is nothing stopping any of them from working together to balance a budget...well except they can't possibly be seen working with each other. Their supporters would go ape ***. And the other reason they can't balance the budget is because they don't have a bill saying they can..LOL. I said this before but I still think it's funny. It's like saying you can't go on a diet because you didn't make a New Years resolution in time.
 
That is not fiscally responsible in the least! It seems like being GOP simply means doing everything in your power to keep taxes from being raised. What the hell has happened to that party?

yes. It's much better to just raise taxes than to cut wasteful spending :rolleyes:
 
HAHAH Republicans pushing for a balanced budget... that is so hilarious!

Funny how they had 6 years of total domination of the US politics and this NEVER came up and they spent like drunken sailors in a whore house. But now that they are in opposition and bare a huge part of the blame for the cluster**** the US is in, then all of a sudden they are back to the "balanced budget" crap. Freaking hypocrites.

And how would you describe the Democrats spending under Obama since his election?
 
This has been tried and failed before, like another poster said Obama would veto it. The last time this was attempted I believe clinton was in office.
Some states have balanced budget amendments like New Jersey. It is not conservative Nirvana. If democrats are in charge they have huge tax increases to balance the budget, when republicans are in if they cant find enough cuts to make, that wont get them voted out of office they have no choice but to raise taxs and it all just continues
 
We already have a balanced budget law. It's called Gramm-Rudman, which was shredded by Democrats and Republicans alike not too long after it became law.
 
Why are Republicans always so concerned with passing amendments. Get some real crap done, actually propose a reasonable budget and then come back - leave the Constitution alone with your bull****.
 
Republican senators push for balanced budget amendment – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



Very interesting. I wish that I could agree with this proposal, but changing the rules to approve spending seems to be a huge problem considering our tendency to be so evenly split.

If they took out the two-thirds to increase taxes, I'd be more willing to support the legislation. The failure to take out such a provision would pass legislation that has nothing to do with a balanced budget and everything to do with destroying the ability of the federal government to respond.

This is reaaaaaaal rich stuff.

While I honestly think it's a great idea.

It ain't gonna work on paper.

Watch the first republican administration have to bypass it because of a little something called REALITY.
 
Not going to happen. Democrat Senate won't pass it and Obama would never sign it, because it goes against his plan to destroy the economy so he can push his Socialist agenda.

Thanks Sean Hannity.... now back to reality.

It will never happen as the Constitution will never again be amended (on anything)... well, not until our politics become more civil (more about solutions, less about party power).

The level of acrimony in our political discourse has reached a dangerous level. Unless we figure out how do this, our Union is headed for serious trouble.
 
Last edited:
Why are Republicans always so concerned with passing amendments. Get some real crap done, actually propose a reasonable budget and then come back.

when the party in power possessed pelosi's place with a plurality of SEVENTY SIX seats and owned as well a FILIBUSTER PROOF senate, it failed pusillanimously even to PROPOSE a budget for 2010

Dems won't pass budget

irrelevant obama's 2012 doa proposal brazenly INCREASES the deficit by THIRTY PERCENT and relies on unrealistically rosy growth rates and near-zero interest forever to WHITEWASH its outyear projections

Obama’s 2012 Budget: $1.65 Trillion Deficit Means More Cuts, Less Stimulus -- Daily Intel
 
this bba was originally floated as the PRICE boehner's boys and broads would exact for agreeing to raise the DEBT CEILING

look at it this way---put yourself in senator clair mccaskill's mary janes

she's in quite a bit of trouble in the show me state which, incidentally voted SEVENTY ONE PERCENT for measure c last fall to murder THE MANDATE

she saw 17 termer ike skelton, armed services CHAIR, tumble before the taunts of some tenderfoot tea drinker on tsunami tuesday

she saw RUBBER STAMP ROBIN CARNAHAN thoroughly ROUTED from her senate INCUMBENCY by a margin of almost FOURTEEN

and now miserable ms mccaskill is tormented by these revelations of EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS of taxpayer subsidized POLITICAL flight on a jet she herself owns

she also admits she failed to pay THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS of state taxes on "the damned plane"

in 04 she savaged her opponent for simply flying private

and this week she credits her own "transparency" for bringing these indiscretions to light

Plane revelations dog McCaskill's re-election bid

how's misfortunate ms mccaskill to appear before her constituents towards 2012 having voted once again to RAISE the debt ceiling while simultaneously KILLING a bba?

the upshot is---the show me senator is certainly not isolated

jon tester in montana, webb in virginia, the nelsons in nebraska and florida, conrad in dakota, manchin in west virginia...

casey, klobuchar, stabenow, brown, bingaman, kohl, cantwell...

even depressed difi in deeply democrat california, where moonbeam brown this week SURRENDERED his special and is now INEVITABLY up against TWELVE TO TWENTY TWO BILLION dollars in CUTS...

i'd hate to be in difi's diors

when you stop to think about it

party on, playmates
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom