• 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!

Do you support a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Do you support a Balanced Budget Amendment


  • Total voters
    21

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
9,207
Reaction score
5,850
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Do you support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Although support has been found for it among the American people, like in this poll, it would of course be difficult to add any amendment to the Constitution. Especially because even among people who support the measure there is much disagreement.

For example there is this version introduced by Justin Amash which uses an average of non-borrowing revenue from the previous three years and can only be suspended if an emergency is declared by 2/3s of each house.

There's also this version introduced by Mark Udall that uses projected figures for the next year, does not apply during a time of declared war and can be exceeded by a 3/5s vote in each House. It also makes it illegal to reduce taxes on those making more than $1 million a year if that would make outlays exceed receipts for any year.

So, do you support any variation of this type of amendment or do you believe that adding a balanced budget amendment would be unnecessary and economically damaging.
 
I voted other because while balancing the budget is important, sometimes the situation isn't entirely clear cut. For example, if we were to borrow to invest in our infrastructure (which we desperately need to overhaul) that would actually be a good thing as while it would cost us in the short-run, it would help our long-term economic growth.
 
No. There's a wide array of circumstances in which small or even sizable deficits are viable and in some cases, optimal. Mandating that the budget be balanced, regardless of economic, military or social circumstances, would quite frankly be irresponsible.
 
Do you support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Although support has been found for it among the American people, like in this poll, it would of course be difficult to add any amendment to the Constitution. Especially because even among people who support the measure there is much disagreement.

For example there is this version introduced by Justin Amash which uses an average of non-borrowing revenue from the previous three years and can only be suspended if an emergency is declared by 2/3s of each house.

There's also this version introduced by Mark Udall that uses projected figures for the next year, does not apply during a time of declared war and can be exceeded by a 3/5s vote in each House. It also makes it illegal to reduce taxes on those making more than $1 million a year if that would make outlays exceed receipts for any year.

So, do you support any variation of this type of amendment or do you believe that adding a balanced budget amendment would be unnecessary and economically damaging.

Deficit financing is a useful tool in peacetime and an absolute necessity in wartime.:peace
 
I voted no for a variety of reasons.


  1. I oppose any new amendments to the constitution. Amending the constitution for transient or minor issues or for things that can be done other ways strikes me as wrong.
  2. If it is important enough to have a balanced budget that you would amend the constitution for it, then it is important enough to do it without amending the constitution.
  3. It strongly reduces the options for responding to major events, such as for example recession/depression.
  4. If it is anything but absolute, congress and the white house will take advantage of the exceptions.

Edit: and this thread is going nowhere near how I expected it would.
 
hm thanks guys, I am surprised, from a Canadian perspective most of us value that highly...it's interesting to see people coming from the opposite perspective and the reasons for that
 
Do you support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Although support has been found for it among the American people, like in this poll, it would of course be difficult to add any amendment to the Constitution. Especially because even among people who support the measure there is much disagreement.

For example there is this version introduced by Justin Amash which uses an average of non-borrowing revenue from the previous three years and can only be suspended if an emergency is declared by 2/3s of each house.

There's also this version introduced by Mark Udall that uses projected figures for the next year, does not apply during a time of declared war and can be exceeded by a 3/5s vote in each House. It also makes it illegal to reduce taxes on those making more than $1 million a year if that would make outlays exceed receipts for any year.

So, do you support any variation of this type of amendment or do you believe that adding a balanced budget amendment would be unnecessary and economically damaging.

Why even bother having such a bill if there are exceptions?

Furthermore, the economic concept is stupid when you understand how a dollar of government spending ripples through the economy. A balanced budget amendment would require the government in times of reduced tax revenues to reduce spending, which in turn represents a reduction in aggregate demand. Obviously reducing demand reduces activity and thus corresponding tax revenues. Which then requires even more cuts. Think of it like this way, imagine if everyone cut 10% of their discretionary spending and saved it. That's 10% less demand. How many people would lose their jobs from lack of spending? And thus their spending reduces other peoples' income causing more drops in discretionary spending until we're in theory into a vicious circle where we default because tax revenues decline below interest payments.

We actually see this with some states who don't have rainy day funds. Their economies shrink and shrink and shrink until the larger national or global economy pulls them out. Left to their own devices, they're on the path to default because the pie gets smaller and smaller as few dollars change hands.
 
Do you support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Although support has been found for it among the American people, like in this poll, it would of course be difficult to add any amendment to the Constitution. Especially because even among people who support the measure there is much disagreement.

For example there is this version introduced by Justin Amash which uses an average of non-borrowing revenue from the previous three years and can only be suspended if an emergency is declared by 2/3s of each house.

There's also this version introduced by Mark Udall that uses projected figures for the next year, does not apply during a time of declared war and can be exceeded by a 3/5s vote in each House. It also makes it illegal to reduce taxes on those making more than $1 million a year if that would make outlays exceed receipts for any year.

So, do you support any variation of this type of amendment or do you believe that adding a balanced budget amendment would be unnecessary and economically damaging.

I said "Don't know" because I honestly don't know.

I know we need a balanced budget. I'm not thrilled with the idea of a Constitutional amendment. And I think there are too many unknowns that could happen. This country is far too big to run on a shoestring, which could be the end result of this kind of act.

I really don't know.
 
Of course, its only common sense. Ost wont agree because most do not have tbeir own financial house in order
 
Do you support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Although support has been found for it among the American people, like in this poll, it would of course be difficult to add any amendment to the Constitution. Especially because even among people who support the measure there is much disagreement.

For example there is this version introduced by Justin Amash which uses an average of non-borrowing revenue from the previous three years and can only be suspended if an emergency is declared by 2/3s of each house.

There's also this version introduced by Mark Udall that uses projected figures for the next year, does not apply during a time of declared war and can be exceeded by a 3/5s vote in each House. It also makes it illegal to reduce taxes on those making more than $1 million a year if that would make outlays exceed receipts for any year.

So, do you support any variation of this type of amendment or do you believe that adding a balanced budget amendment would be unnecessary and economically damaging.

No. Even with a Constitutional requirement to adopt a balance budget every year, politicians will still be able to manipulate the budget process and hide their deficit spending ever more.

This has been the case with California for many, many years. Constitutional requirement to adopt a balanced budget, yet the Progressive Legislature has added $10's of billions to the state debt through "accounting gimmicks" that allow them to continue their game.
 
Do you support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Although support has been found for it among the American people, like in this poll, it would of course be difficult to add any amendment to the Constitution. Especially because even among people who support the measure there is much disagreement.

For example there is this version introduced by Justin Amash which uses an average of non-borrowing revenue from the previous three years and can only be suspended if an emergency is declared by 2/3s of each house.

There's also this version introduced by Mark Udall that uses projected figures for the next year, does not apply during a time of declared war and can be exceeded by a 3/5s vote in each House. It also makes it illegal to reduce taxes on those making more than $1 million a year if that would make outlays exceed receipts for any year.

So, do you support any variation of this type of amendment or do you believe that adding a balanced budget amendment would be unnecessary and economically damaging.

I think it would simply be a waste of time. While I think the general idea of it is a good one I am very skeptical about its actual effectiveness. Any balanced budget amendment or law is going to have to have an emergency clause in it to allow over spending in times of war or disaster or put our country in a very precarious position. Our politicians will simply use this clause to continue to over spend every year. How many years out of the last 20 could they have used war as an excuse? In our history as a nation we have had some type of military conflict or disaster almost every single year.
 
I think that an amendment that allows enough flexibility to respond to unforeseen circumstances will also allow enough that it can be gotten around on a regular basis.

I also think such an amendment has zero chance of passing. If 3/4 of the country wanted a balanced budget, we'd have a balanced budget.
 
Back
Top Bottom