• 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

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 conspiracy theory? My post is based on statements Obama and others in his Administration, appointees, Czars and admitted Communists and Socialists have made and well as a few Liberals in both Houses of congress.

Add to that the FACT that Obama spent 20 years learning all about Black Liberation Theology which is based on Marxism, after being raised by Communists and seeking out the same in College as well as radicals.

You can bury your head in the sand or some other place but it won't change the FACTS.
 
What conspiracy theory? My post is based on statements Obama and others in his Administration, appointees, Czars and admitted Communists and Socialists have made and well as a few Liberals in both Houses of congress.

Add to that the FACT that Obama spent 20 years learning all about Black Liberation Theology which is based on Marxism, after being raised by Communists and seeking out the same in College as well as radicals.

You can bury your head in the sand or some other place but it won't change the FACTS.

A series of facts does not an outcome make... Just because there are facts does not mean there is sufficient evident to extend your argument to causation.
 
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?

As opposed the other party of drunken sailors?
 
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.
Reality? You act like there is not choice in the direction of reality. So that's how the left justifies its thinking, "Awww, we have to face reality and keep blacks on welfare, and pay out more social security benefits to people who never worked, and more programs to save the spotted owl. We can't help it." :roll:
 
Last edited:
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 don't think it's a good idea either. What if we are attacked and declare war, we'd need to suddenly spend more money on moving troops and waging war... What if a major earthquake hits CA, or a hurricane hits FL, tornado in the Midwest, fires, floods, etc... they'd need emergency relief and that would require spending too, maybe even activating the guards. It just seems reckless to me, but maybe it's a stunt the GOP is trying to pull to look good, because they probably know it would never be amended under Obama.
 
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.

Then Bush should have spend less money...
 
Is there any numbers that show that democrats spend more then republicans?
 
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.

This a great point. I think you're on to something... the truth!
 
Is there any numbers that show that democrats spend more then republicans?

Look who invented payroll taxes, social security, welfare, and other social programs.
 
yes. It's much better to just raise taxes than to cut wasteful spending :rolleyes:

Wasteful spending is a buzz word. Nobody is against cutting wasteful spending. It's just that the democrats and republicans consider different things as "wasteful spending."
 
Wasteful spending is a buzz word. Nobody is against cutting wasteful spending. It's just that the democrats and republicans consider different things as "wasteful spending."

Only because Democrats don't follow the Constitution and the founding principles. They invent their own ideology, which is called distribution of wealth.
 
Reality? You act like there is not choice in the direction of reality. So that's how the left justifies its thinking, "Awww, we have to face reality and keep blacks on welfare, and pay out more social security benefits to people who never worked, and more programs to save the spotted owl. We can't help it." :roll:

You think only black people are on welfare... :shock:
 
Only because Democrats don't follow the Constitution and the founding principles. They invent their own ideology, which is called distribution of wealth.

Examples?

.........
 
I have had this discussion before with those who invoke the founding fathers as some sort of right wing ideologies. Fact is taxing is one of the first things the 1st congress did. And starting the first bank. Then they taxed whiskey. The compromise of 1790 was designed to have the federal gov. assume the debt of the states. None of which fits into the rights view of the founding fathers. You should perhaps read about the first congress and the other Early bills they passed before invoking them so much.
Only because Democrats don't follow the Constitution and the founding principles. They invent their own ideology, which is called distribution of wealth.
 
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?

answer: they become weapons in the 2012 election. Senator So and So says he's for fiscal responsibility, but he voted to kill a balanced budget amendment that would have solved the deficit. why does Senator So and So hate your children?

etc...
 
Is there any numbers that show that democrats spend more then republicans?

....have you seen the deficits we've had since Democrats took over the House in 2006?
 
As opposed the other party of drunken sailors?

again. as someone with friends in the Navy i have to ask that people cease using this scurrilous comparison. all the drunken sailors i have ever closed a bar with were spending their own money; and when they ran out they stopped.
 
I thought libertarians were for really small
government. Was I wrong?

I am for really small government, but there a difference between moving in that direction the right way and the wrong way. This isn't practical in any sense nor is it reasonable.
 
apparently the bill in question caps spending at 18% of GDP. which is fantastic.
 
Only because Democrats don't follow the Constitution and the founding principles. They invent their own ideology, which is called distribution of wealth.

as opposed to the GOP whose ideology is concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.....?
 
Why are Republicans suddenly in favor of a balanced budget amendment? Wasn't the war in Iraq largely financed through debt? (Not looking to turn this into a right or wrong on the war, simply saying that there was a lot of debt involved in a war that their party overwhelmingly supported)

The reason why it's a bad idea is this. Debt isn't always bad. Think about your personal finances -- if you own a house, you probably didn't come up with cash for it. You have a mortgage, which is debt. Car payments? Debt. Would your life be better with no house and no car?
 
as opposed to the GOP whose ideology is concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.....?

It's almost as if somebody is inside my brain writing my posts for me before I even get the chance.......
 
Why are Republicans suddenly in favor of a balanced budget amendment? Wasn't the war in Iraq largely financed through debt? (Not looking to turn this into a right or wrong on the war, simply saying that there was a lot of debt involved in a war that their party overwhelmingly supported)

The reason why it's a bad idea is this. Debt isn't always bad. Think about your personal finances -- if you own a house, you probably didn't come up with cash for it. You have a mortgage, which is debt. Car payments? Debt. Would your life be better with no house and no car?

Debt is not always bad, just almost always bad....plus look at the amount of debt and what is being purchased.
IF the debt was budgeted for and incoming funds were assured, and the house and/or car was a reasonable purchase instead of a McMansion and a Hummer SUV....take on SOME debt. Never take on credit card debt.

I am for removing interest as a tax deduction. It subsidizes stupidity.
 
A balanced budget amendment will last about as long as the line item veto did....
 
apparently the bill in question caps spending at 18% of GDP. which is fantastic.

Why 18%?

Oh yea, that is what it was before 1929... as usual the GOP wants to live in the past.
 
Back
Top Bottom