• 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!

United States loses its AAA Credit rating from S & P

Status
Not open for further replies.
The results of a balanced budget amendment - is that also stupid?
What results? There are ways around the budget. Bush ran the wars off the budget. A balanced budget is a figment of your imagination. THINK!!
 
What results?

Right... I thought it was obvious but to you it's not. The result of a balanced budget amendment is that there would be Constitutional requirement to balance the Federal budget.

You didn't answer the question... THINK!
 
The CSBA agreed and blamed the ballooning budgets on the Bush administration's unprecedented decision to fund the wars through giant emergency spending measures rather than through appropriations requests.

"The process has reduced the ability of Congress to exercise effective oversight. It has also tended to obscure the long-term costs and budgetary consequences of ongoing military operations," the report says. It also warns that such emergency bills have included "substantial amounts of funding for programs unrelated to the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

(snip)

The report also rapped the Bush administration's paying for the wars through borrowing, rather than tax increases and spending cuts. That approach, it concluded, will lead to interest costs through 2018 that range from about $70 billion to as high as about $700 billion, depending on how much of the war funding came through bond sales.

Study Criticizes Bush Approach to War Funding, Calls for Changes


Stillcliaming the GOP doesn't spend?

Now that Obama has ended the Iraq, Afghanistan Wars and closed GITMO we won't have to worry about deficits any more
 
Wow, put down the Koolaid, kid. Do you HONESTLY believe that Bush did not foresee that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars needed to be funded every year? You are either extremely gullible or you have a serious integrity problem.

Where does the 600 billion a year in Defense budget go?
 
Now that Obama has ended the Iraq, Afghanistan Wars and closed GITMO we won't have to worry about deficits any more

Nice effort to avoid answering (not really). Are you still claiming republicans don't spend? :coffeepap
 
Nice effort to avoid answering (not really). Are you still claiming republicans don't spend? :coffeepap

Republicans spend but Obama put Republican spending on steroids thus the 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years.
 
Republicans spend but Obama put Republican spending on steroids thus the 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years.

Debatable, but meaningless. The fact is republicans spend just as democrats do. If you'reconcerned with spending, you might want to look elsewhere. :coffeepap
 
Where does the 600 billion a year in Defense budget go?

Irrelevant. Bush knew perfectly well that on-budget defense spending was inadequate to support the wars.
 
Irrelevant. Bush knew perfectly well that on-budget defense spending was inadequate to support the wars.

So when you have no response you call it irrelevant. Goes to show just how much you know about the budget process and what the items in those budgets fund. So now we know that you don't understand when the fiscal year of the U.S. begins and ends plus now we know you don't understand budgeting. Carry on. Let me give you a hint, the Defense budget funds our military and pays the members of the military and also funds the wars
 
So when you have no response you call it irrelevant. Goes to show just how much you know about the budget process and what the items in those budgets fund. So now we know that you don't understand when the fiscal year of the U.S. begins and ends plus now we know you don't understand budgeting. Carry on. Let me give you a hint, the Defense budget funds our military and pays the members of the military and also funds the wars

You're just blathering. The fact is that Bush hid the cost of the wars by paying for them off budget. He and everyone else knew perfectly well that on-budget defense funding was inadequate.
 
You're just blathering. The fact is that Bush hid the cost of the wars by paying for them off budget. He and everyone else knew perfectly well that on-budget defense funding was inadequate.

Bush hid nothing, the debt is what it is and includes the cost of the wars. Stop trying to defend your false statements. There is so much you don't know yet claim you do.
 
What results? There are ways around the budget. Bush ran the wars off the budget. A balanced budget is a figment of your imagination. THINK!!

He's talking about the mythical results of the mythical balance budget amendment that passed in several mythical years ago

Try to keep up, pb
 
Right... I thought it was obvious but to you it's not. The result of a balanced budget amendment is that there would be Constitutional requirement to balance the Federal budget.

You didn't answer the question... THINK!

Very nice strawman - no one is questioning the debt incurred. We're controlling the amount of future debt.
What strawman? A budget, whether it is yours, or the Federal government, it just a plan. According to the following most states don't really have a balanced budget even though they say they do.

The Phony Balanced Budget Amendment Debate | Capital Gains and Games

Next week, House Republicans plan to debate a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Although polls show overwhelming public support, it is doubtful that many Americans realize that the measure to be debated is not, in fact, a workable blueprint to enforce a balanced budget. In fact, it’s just more political theater designed to delight the Tea Party.

Historically, those supporting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution were only interested in balance per se. That is, requiring that revenues and expenditures be as close to equal as possible. The view was that if the states – almost all of which are required to balance their budgets annually – could do it then so could the federal government.

One problem is that the states don’t really balance their budgets. All have separate operating and capital budgets and only the operating budget is required to be balanced. By contrast, the federal budget lumps together operating and capital expenses, such as roads and buildings that will last for decades. Moreover, the states are notorious for using gimmicks to give the appearance of budget balance even though they run deficits.
...
 
Last edited:
I guess states could balance their budget like perry did in Texas,by kicking the can down the rode.WAIT...that's what were doing now.Forgidaboutit.:(
That's what T-Paw did in Minnesota as well.
 
That's what T-Paw did in Minnesota as well.

Aww, don't pick on T-Paw. The guy just folded his tent because he didn't win the meaningless Iowa Straw Poll, for God's sake. How pathetic is that?
 
I guess states could balance their budget like perry did in Texas,by kicking the can down the rode.WAIT...that's what were doing now.Forgidaboutit.:(

TX has a balanced budget requirement so where do you get your information that TX didn't balance the budget and kicked the can down the road? This thread isn't about Perry but I guess anything to divert from the thread topic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom