• 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!

Is It Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • No

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,549
Reaction score
4,658
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
We havent had a poll on this in a while, so I thought I would bring it up again. Given the skyrocketing spending and debt, out of control social spending, and the inability of congress to deal with it, would you support an amendment to the constitution to the effect of requiring the govt to not spend more than it has in the treasury, except in the case of a congress declared national emergency? The exact language doesnt matter. Just the idea, for the purposed of this poll.
 
yes, and I would also support no one in Congress getting paid until those budgets are final. Oh and all of Congress must participate in Obamacare
 
We havent had a poll on this in a while, so I thought I would bring it up again. Given the skyrocketing spending and debt, out of control social spending, and the inability of congress to deal with it, would you support an amendment to the constitution to the effect of requiring the govt to not spend more than it has in the treasury, except in the case of a congress declared national emergency? The exact language doesnt matter. Just the idea, for the purposed of this poll.

The 2010 census was declared an emergency to bypass the "pay as you go" federal budget "law". ;)
 
I would support it so long as 10 or so years were given for costs to be reconciled with income.

I would prefer to avoid an economic depression
 
We havent had a poll on this in a while, so I thought I would bring it up again. Given the skyrocketing spending and debt, out of control social spending, and the inability of congress to deal with it, would you support an amendment to the constitution to the effect of requiring the govt to not spend more than it has in the treasury, except in the case of a congress declared national emergency? The exact language doesnt matter. Just the idea, for the purposed of this poll.

Balancing the budget can be done by cutting spending, raising taxes or both. Given the current makeup of the federal gov't just what do you think that would mean? Yep. A huge tax increase followed by a huge recession.
 
Definitely, and here's the formula that I would prescribe in it......

Prior to the budget being written the CBO should be required to provide the members of the US House with a predicted income for the US Government for the following fiscal year, based on taxes, tarrifs, etc.... The total for the US Budget in that fiscal year would be limited to 90% of that predicted income. The additional 10% would be placed in a "rainy day" fund that could only be tapped by a Supermajority vote ofeach of the following groups.... The US House of Representatives, US Senate, the Governors of the 50 US States and the Justices of the SCOTUS, and approved by the POTUS for use in time of War (requiring a Declaration of War by the US Congress) or extreme national emergency.

The only way that additional funding could be added to the budget would be for items to be removed from it OR for revenues to exceed the projected income. That means 100% of hte projected income must already be in the coffers for that additional money to be used. Likewise, only 90% of that money could be used, with the other 10% going into the "rainy day" fund.
 
There really isn't a need for a balanced budget. Going through Congress now is a bill that would reduce the deficit $23B over the next 10 years.

For most of our history, that would be a lot of money.
 
Balancing the budget can be done by cutting spending, raising taxes or both. Given the current makeup of the federal gov't just what do you think that would mean? Yep. A huge tax increase followed by a huge recession.

You know as well as I do that no matter what restriction we put on govt, it wont solve every new problem they come up with. So would you support it or not?
 
Definitely, and here's the formula that I would prescribe in it......

Prior to the budget being written the CBO should be required to provide the members of the US House with a predicted income for the US Government for the following fiscal year, based on taxes, tarrifs, etc.... The total for the US Budget in that fiscal year would be limited to 90% of that predicted income. The additional 10% would be placed in a "rainy day" fund that could only be tapped by a Supermajority vote ofeach of the following groups.... The US House of Representatives, US Senate, the Governors of the 50 US States and the Justices of the SCOTUS, and approved by the POTUS for use in time of War (requiring a Declaration of War by the US Congress) or extreme national emergency.

The only way that additional funding could be added to the budget would be for items to be removed from it OR for revenues to exceed the projected income. That means 100% of hte projected income must already be in the coffers for that additional money to be used. Likewise, only 90% of that money could be used, with the other 10% going into the "rainy day" fund.

That sounds like too much to put in the constitution, but I would be fine with that in one of the implementation laws.
 
You know as well as I do that no matter what restriction we put on govt, it wont solve every new problem they come up with. So would you support it or not?

It depends. If it includes a percentage of GDP limit (say 17%) for both total federal spending and total federal taxation and a 3/5 majority in both the Senate and House to declare an emergency (with that emergency lasting no more than one consecutive year) then probably.
 
There really isn't a need for a Balanced Budget Amendment. What IS needed is Congressmen and Senators adhereing to the Constitution as written and only appgropriating what's currently in the Treasury based on receipts at the time the bill is scored for said appropriations.

In short, Congress should do its job and do away with earmarks and the like and just do real math.
 
That sounds like too much to put in the constitution, but I would be fine with that in one of the implementation laws.

Without a VERY specific plan, such as that one, I would not be in favor of such a thing. Without such explicit instructions the devil becomes in the details and the details become maleable when they're determined by Congress. Implementing the details through the Constitutional Amendment would be the only means to ensure they are not simply changed on a whim.
 
There really isn't a need for a Balanced Budget Amendment. What IS needed is Congressmen and Senators adhereing to the Constitution as written and only appgropriating what's currently in the Treasury based on receipts at the time the bill is scored for said appropriations.

In short, Congress should do its job and do away with earmarks and the like and just do real math.

Which is why we need an amendment, because getting such congressman dont exist. You might as well say we dont need a constitution, we just need benevolent rulers who beleive in liberty.
 
Which is why we need an amendment, because getting such congressman dont exist. You might as well say we dont need a constitution, we just need benevolent rulers who beleive in liberty.

such congressman don't get elected because the voters do not care enough to challange them.
 
Without a VERY specific plan, such as that one, I would not be in favor of such a thing. Without such explicit instructions the devil becomes in the details and the details become maleable when they're determined by Congress. Implementing the details through the Constitutional Amendment would be the only means to ensure they are not simply changed on a whim.

But thats the purpose of the constitution. Broad strokes on what is and isnt permitted. And then congress has the power to implement that through neccesary and proper laws. We still have to elect people and watch them to make sure theyre implementing the law correctly. I dont think we have to micromanage though.
 
But thats the purpose of the constitution. Broad strokes on what is and isnt permitted. And then congress has the power to implement that through neccesary and proper laws. We still have to elect people and watch them to make sure theyre implementing the law correctly. I dont think we have to micromanage though.

I do not have ANY level of faith in ANY individual who is capable of getting themselves elected (especially from the Communistwealth of Massachusetts) to properly implement or maintain the laws of this country.
 
The Federal Government should simply have a budget in place by June 30, of any given year midnight. Failure to do so would result in all congressional and white house employees including office holders being put on probation without pay until the budget is adopted. If the budget is not adopted within 90 days elections would be scheduled for all elected offices and incumbents would not be permitted to run.

Guess what we'd have a budget each year - then force them to balance it.


yes, and I would also support no one in Congress getting paid until those budgets are final. Oh and all of Congress must participate in Obamacare
 
There really isn't a need for a balanced budget. Going through Congress now is a bill that would reduce the deficit $23B over the next 10 years.

For most of our history, that would be a lot of money.

And that means precisely nothing. First it's all projections and not associated with real life. Second allowing ANY deficit just increases the DEBT.
 
I do not have ANY level of faith in ANY individual who is capable of getting themselves elected (especially from the Communistwealth of Massachusetts) to properly implement or maintain the laws of this country.

So you want direct democracy?
 
For example?

a balanced budget amendment could potentially give control of the budget over to the courts, because any constitutional amendment is subject to extensive judicial review. do you really think unelected courts should hold power over what goes in the budget, especially since their rulings are hard to predict?
 
Back
Top Bottom