- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 10,658
- Reaction score
- 3,773
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Don't know who "Boner" is.
Speaker John Boner.
Don't know who "Boner" is.
What do you guys think about a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution? Personally I think it would be a great amendment except for the fact that Democrats and some Republicans would relentlessly raise taxes to comply with the amendment. A possible solution to this is have a 5 year fixed tax rate, basically saying the government cant raise taxes in order to comply with the balanced budget amendment unless there is a 3/4 majority to do so. Also, congress members would get a pay cut if the budget wasnt balanced in time.
Thoughts?
I don't believe that a strictly balanced budget is necessarily a good idea. It doesn't leave enough wiggle room. Instead, I'd like to see limits that allow a little deficit spending when it's necessary, but keep it in check. For example, allow deficit spending, but never more than say 10% of the budget, and don't allow deficit spending to go on for more than X number of years in a row. And set a hard cap on the national debt as a portion of GDP.
There really is no limit to how much you people would borrow and spend or how quickly you'd borrow and spend it, is there?
When millions of contruction workers are out of work and America has 100's of bridges that need repair it's a no-brainer that we should do that work now. We borrowed to build bridges in Iraq but not in our own country? If you were worried about debt you would support David Stockman's one time wealth tax on the top 5%. just 15% would cut our debt in half overnight.
It's not about debt it's about cutting programs you don't like. You wouldn't be a Republican if you didn't approve of more and more debt. You saw the chart I posted didn't you?
What departments/programs would you be willing to abolish to make this happen?
I agree with the basic Keynesian principle of deficit spending during recessions and paying down the debt during the booms. A balanced budget amendment would tie their hands and prevent the government from moderating the excesses of the market. We should work to balance the budget, but preventing unemployed people from rioting in the streets is a higher priority.
I would like to see all Federal Spending reduced to the levels of 2008. If a program or expenditure did not exist in 2008, cut it completely.
All wage rates and head counts cut back to the levels prevailing in 2008. Real dollars. Not adjusted for inflation. That is a good placed to start.
Once that is accomplished, reduce all expenditures by 10%. All of them. No exceptions.
From that point forward, no shopping cart legislation. One particular bill presented and approved at a time. If there are 1000 projects in the highway bill, then vote on each one of them. Make every expenditure based on 0 baseline budgeting. If there is anything to be spent, then make the vote on that one thing.
Since the Senate can only pass about 60 bills per year, 30 if Ried is in charge, we'd balance the budget in no time at all.
Some good ideas....What do you guys think about a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution? Personally I think it would be a great amendment except for the fact that Democrats and some Republicans would relentlessly raise taxes to comply with the amendment. A possible solution to this is have a 5 year fixed tax rate, basically saying the government cant raise taxes in order to comply with the balanced budget amendment unless there is a 3/4 majority to do so. Also, congress members would get a pay cut if the budget wasnt balanced in time.
Thoughts?
I'm not a liberal; I'm a socialist and liberal nor socialist are not mutually exclusive with independent
Sure - and Bush II let 9/11 happen so he could have Iraq II and finish what Daddy started, right?!? :lol:neither-but we would have had a bunch more ships and sailors in the pacific if FDR hadn't let the Imperial Navy hit our unprotected naval base so he could use it to get us into a war with Germany
It is national self-sabotage to limit our purchases to what we can actually afford to purchase. This is America. We can grow and prosper forever.
/sarcasm
Why 2008? There was a deficit then, too. Deficit spending is not something that Obama suddenly thought of one day. It's been going on for years, and has been out of control since the '80s.
Why in one paragraph do you propose something that would grind the wheels of government to a halt (voting on every expenditure individually), then in the next you criticize Harry Reid for not whipping them through? Which do you want? (Also, FYI, if the Senate did pass bill after bill, they'd have to be passed by the House also before becoming law. What do you think the chances of that are right now?)
Also, "adjusted for inflation" is real dollars. Today we think the dollar store is a great bargain. In 1950, it would have been a colossal rip-off.
What do you guys think about a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution? Personally I think it would be a great amendment except for the fact that Democrats and some Republicans would relentlessly raise taxes to comply with the amendment. A possible solution to this is have a 5 year fixed tax rate, basically saying the government cant raise taxes in order to comply with the balanced budget amendment unless there is a 3/4 majority to do so. Also, congress members would get a pay cut if the budget wasnt balanced in time.
Thoughts?
Honestly I cannot see such a amendment doing a lot of good. I am sure they would have an emergency clause that would enable them to go over budget during a crises such as war, natural disasters, ect. Congress would simply find a crisis on any given year or slowly include more things that are considered a crises to the point the amendment is pointless. They would never restrict themselves completely by not having a loophole in which to jump.
That is absolutely true.
There could be no emergency clause for the reason you state.
There could be a system of raising money by selling bonds or something like that.
That is absolutely true.
There could be no emergency clause for the reason you state.
There could be a system of raising money by selling bonds or something like that.
What departments/programs would you be willing to abolish to make this happen?