• 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

Which he should have done. Which is exactly why there shouldn't be a balanced budget amendment, because you need to be able to go into debt to do what needs to be done sometimes. I'm not advocating unbridled spending on anything and everything, but a Constitutional amendment puts a really big barrier in the way of doing what's necessary.

Picture this: we get attacked (which we were on 9/11), and need to respond with force (which we needed to do in Afghanistan). BUT...we can't mobilize the army because the Constitution forbids us from going into debt. Now we have to quickly repeal the amendment (which isn't a fast or easy thing to do) before we can go to war. That's a bad situation.

We can have an amendment with an escape clause, that in the event of emergency actions our taxes will be raised to pay for it....
 
It's funny that bills are bills and instead of confronting the bills we owe like we all do at home the right always plays some sort of game. Like cutting taxes. If I cut my income at home it doesn't make my bills smaller. A ceiling doesn't make our bills disappear. Why don't they simply find the guts to do what needs to be done to cut spending. Cut services. And then go out and tell people you are going to cut those services because you don't have the cash. Raise taxes to help pay those bills also. That is how we do it in our homes. We don't play semantic games.
 
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 isn’t going to happen. Try this scenario, you have an interstate highway that’s full of potholes,its beyond repair needs thousands of miles of not only new concrete but the repairs have been put off for so long the subsurface needs reinforcing. Congress looks it over and says well, boys and girls this is what we need, now where’s the money coming from?

I can see the sign now …Welcome to Interstate 80,we,ve just dumped a truckload of #3 clean gravel for you driving pleasure.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
DEMS should find it hard to vote against it....if they care what the voters thinks. But even if it passes, remember how long the line item veto lasted....

yeah, i foresee Democrats finding a way to quietly administratively shuffle this out of sight rather than risk going on record on it.
 
Last edited:

because we tend to collect 18.5% of GDP in revenue irrespective of our tax rates. they are simply providing the Government with a "fudge" factor in case that historical average drops (say, if unemployment increases).

wsj-tax-revenue-chart-ed-ah556b_ranso_20080519194014.gif


So this is just a way of keeping themselves honest. as in "look, we passed a balanced budget by assuming that the federal governmentwould collect 25% of GDP in revenues!"
 
Have you noticed we were and are still in two wars. And BTW we have pretty much always had deficits. Nothing new there.

 
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.

...interest was removed as a tax deduction with the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (though interest remains a deduction for home mortgages)...
 
because we tend to collect 18.5% of GDP in revenue irrespective of our tax rates. they are simply providing the Government with a "fudge" factor in case that historical average drops (say, if unemployment increases).

wsj-tax-revenue-chart-ed-ah556b_ranso_20080519194014.gif


So this is just a way of keeping themselves honest. as in "look, we passed a balanced budget by assuming that the federal governmentwould collect 25% of GDP in revenues!"

...of course, if the US is attacked, we probably would have to pass on retaliation as it might push us over the 18.5% GDP, which would be unconstitutional spending...

Nice theory, but a constitutional amendment to do almost anything, let alone a balanced budget amendment, will never happen in the lifetimes of anyone posting on this board...
 
more power to you

live em, libs, love em, they're YOURS

OBAMA'S WARS

Translation: Now that it's Obama's war it's a bad thing. Funny how many Conservatives have suddenly become doves...
 
LOL....Republicans pushing for a balanced budget is like prostitutes pushing for abstinence and monogamy.
 
...of course, if the US is attacked, we probably would have to pass on retaliation as it might push us over the 18.5% GDP, which would be unconstitutional spending...

nope. the proposal specifically allows for deficit spending over the cap in an emergency situation - it simply requires a supermajority of Congress to recognize that it's an emergency. So, we get attacked, it goes straight to Congress, who authorizes it (and has to reauthorize it every year afterwards), and out to defense. Buuuut Farmers Who Speak Both Spanish And German And Like Bunnies Inc. goes to seek a nice big fat subsidy; that's not an emergency, and the opposing party has nothing to gain but positive optics by shutting it down.

Nice theory, but a constitutional amendment to do almost anything, let alone a balanced budget amendment, will never happen in the lifetimes of anyone posting on this board...

yup. neither will civil rights, or the fall of the USSR.

why in the world would i refuse to support the right thing; just because some consider it unlikely?
 
I don't care about this. I am seriuos.

why do you presume mature americans concern themselves with what you do or don't care about
 
This seems like a Republican ploy to confirm it's grasp on wall street by eliminating tax changes and most likely correlated with the coming races to candidacy.

Well, I'll get the pop corn. -.-;
 
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,

I would support this entirely.
 
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.

As usual, it's just another political dirty trick to discredit Obama. The $60 billion cut they're pushing, couldn't possibly balance the budget. They'd still be $940 billion short.

The only things House Reps want to do, or can do, is try to kill all existing Dem bills.

ricksfolly
 
Obama has discredited himself, he has proven to be completely unprepared to a President.

As usual, it's just another political dirty trick to discredit Obama. The $60 billion cut they're pushing, couldn't possibly balance the budget. They'd still be $940 billion short.

The only things House Reps want to do, or can do, is try to kill all existing Dem bills.

ricksfolly
 
Back
Top Bottom