Balanced-Budget Amendment Fails in House

[fskimospy]

Smart move by the Democrats. Balanced budget amendments are horrible ideas.

 

[theeedude]

Not fail, by putting the Democrat members in the house on record as voting against a balanced budget any (R) running against them will use it in upcoming elections.

Fail to get anything done. FAIL.

 

[etrigan420]

You MUST have that exception because the nation can't be prevented from going to war if the need exists. It's up to Congress to determine if such a need exists.

It's a simple realization that you can not continuously spend more than you bring in, no matter how you rationalize it.

Ummm...so we can't spend more than we bring in, no matter *how* we rationalize it...unless it's for a war?

In other words, we *can* spend more than we bring in, depending on how we rationalize it.

So what was the point of this stupid amendment again?

 

[JS80]

Fail to get anything done. FAIL.

Not doing anything in government is generally a win.

 

[hal2kilo]

Not doing anything in government is generally a win.

Thank you, Calvin Coolidge.

 

[palehorse]

Ummm...so we can't spend more than we bring in, no matter *how* we rationalize it...unless it's for a war?

In other words, we *can* spend more than we bring in, depending on how we rationalize it.

So what was the point of this stupid amendment again?

All amendments allow for very unique and specific exceptions that are usually validated by the USSC at a later date (ie. Screaming "fire" in a movie theater)

Warfare is the only reasonable exception I can think of at this time... can you name another?

And, even if you can think of another exception, and enough people agree, it can always be proposed as a new exception at a later date, can it not?

I would much rather see a whitelist of specific exceptions than the free-for-all spending sprees we have now...

 

[fskimospy]

Balanced budget amendments = all the bad parts of putting your country on the gold standard without any of the good parts. It's the worst of both worlds.

 

[palehorse]

Balanced budget amendments = all the bad parts of putting your country on the gold standard without any of the good parts. It's the worst of both worlds.

Please explain.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Even if we were to believe that the R's caused the deficit (yeah, right), it still doesn't matter. It needs to be fixed, no matter who caused it, and one party is intent on not fixing it.

You're only half right. Neither party is intent on fixing it.

 

[fskimospy]

Please explain.

One of the biggest problems with the gold standard is its limitation of a government's use of fiscal policy to combat crisis. Historically this has led to a lot of problems. The good parts of a gold standard are the economic benefits of a common medium of exchange, and other things that don't apply here.

Yes, technically through a supermajority you could authorize such spending, but as our last crisis showed we had a tough enough time mustering a simple majority. It would lead to policy paralysis at vital points, and so it's a terrible idea.

 

[Jaskalas]

I say we return the favor and vote no on anything and everything the Dems want.

 

[Ausm]

Again, for the slow among us, even if you assume this is all true and it's all the evil R's fault -- it doesn't matter, you still have to fix it, no matter who created the problem.

Yet you still defend the party at fault doesn't really make you a rocket scientist.

 

[fskimospy]

I say we return the favor and vote no on anything and everything the Dems want.

Pretty sure the GOP is waaaaaaay ahead of you on that one.

 

[hal2kilo]

I say we return the favor and vote no on anything and everything the Dems want.

The request is not necessary. That is what is happening, you know our defacto president Senate Minority Leader McConnell.

 

[Ausm]

I say we return the favor and vote no on anything and everything the Dems want.

Did you just crawl out from under a rock?? Your side has been doing it since the 112th Congress began.

A well known fact is Mitch McConnell secretly spoons with the Filibuster.

 

[palehorse]

One of the biggest problems with the gold standard is its limitation of a government's use of fiscal policy to combat crisis. Historically this has led to a lot of problems. The good parts of a gold standard are the economic benefits of a common medium of exchange, and other things that don't apply here.

Yes, technically through a supermajority you could authorize such spending, but as our last crisis showed we had a tough enough time mustering a simple majority. It would lead to policy paralysis at vital points, and so it's a terrible idea.

I would argue that any exceptions allowing for deficit spending (ie. war or something like tarp) SHOULD rightfully require a supermajority.

The proposals for such exceptions should become as rare as the declaration of war itself -- rather than the free-for-all deficit spending situation we're experiencing today.

 

[fskimospy]

I would argue that any exceptions allowing for deficit spending (ie. war or something like tarp) SHOULD rightfully require a supermajority.

The proposals for such exceptions should become as rare as the declaration of war itself -- rather than the free-for-all deficit spending situation we're experiencing today.

Well, we'll just have to disagree then. Requiring a supermajority for deficit spending in the current crisis could very well have led to a global economic catastrophe.

I don't think the proponents of a BBA have thought through its likely consequences, but luckily it's nowhere close to having enough support to pass. Well, I think Republicans want to use it as a back door way to cut social spending, so they have probably thought it through. The general public has not though.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well, I think Republicans want to use it as a back door way to cut social spending, so they have probably thought it through. The general public has not though.

You think? Not only do the wealthiest of the wealthy not get an increase in taxes, they get a tax break.

 

[palehorse]

Well, we'll just have to disagree then. Requiring a supermajority for deficit spending in the current crisis could very well have led to a global economic catastrophe.

I don't think the proponents of a BBA have thought through its likely consequences, but luckily it's nowhere close to having enough support to pass. Well, I think Republicans want to use it as a back door way to cut social spending, so they have probably thought it through. The general public has not though.

You may be able to convince me that the current economic crisis is on par with a declaration of war itself. However, you can't sit there with a straight face and say that much of what we're currently spending money on reaches that dramatic threshold... can you?

Can we at least agree that deficit spending should only be considered and authorized in times of severe crisis -- those times when the physical or economic safety of our entire nation is at stake?

 

[fskimospy]

You may be able to convince me that the current economic crisis is on par with a declaration of war itself. However, you can't sit there with a straight face and say that much of what we're currently spending money on reaches that dramatic threshold... can you?

Can we at least agree that deficit spending should only be considered and authorized in times of severe crisis -- those times when the physical or economic safety of our entire nation is at stake?

Sadly, we cannot agree on either of those points.

 

[K1052]

I would argue that any exceptions allowing for deficit spending (ie. war or something like tarp) SHOULD rightfully require a supermajority.

The proposals for such exceptions should become as rare as the declaration of war itself -- rather than the free-for-all deficit spending situation we're experiencing today.

Someone feel free to correct my recollection but I don't think the TARP bill would have passed the house had a supermajority been required. For all it's flaws something like TARP was needed right at that moment and not after further weeks of political wrangling. A further delay would have been terminal for the economy.

 

[palehorse]

Sadly, we cannot agree on either of those points.

What is your argument FOR non-crisis deficit spending?

I'm sincerely trying to understand your reasoning, so please bare with me...

 

[fskimospy]

What is your argument FOR non-crisis deficit spending?

I'm sincerely trying to understand your reasoning, so please bare with me...

That there can, and frequently are investments that governments should undertake that have large potential returns, and these need not always be offset by spending cuts somewhere else. Due to significant startup and shutdown costs of nationwide programs it often wouldn't be wise to cut some program by half one year and then restore it the next just to pay for a specific project, etc. Even states that have balanced budget amendments have room for such deficit spending. It's not what we should generally do, but I can easily think of cases where such flexibility would be good to have.

I also don't appreciate how a BBA would be used in practice, which would almost certainly be that Republicans would pass tax cuts with rosy revenue projections, and then demand social spending cuts when those revenues didn't appear.

 

[fskimospy]

Someone feel free to correct my recollection but I don't think the TARP bill would have passed the house had a supermajority been required. For all it's flaws something like TARP was needed right at that moment and not after further weeks of political wrangling. A further delay would have been terminal for the economy.

TARP barely passed just needing a simple majority. That's what I was referring to when I said a BBA would have likely caused a worldwide economic catastrophe.

 

[palehorse]

That there can, and frequently are investments that governments should undertake that have large potential returns, and these need not always be offset by spending cuts somewhere else. Due to significant startup and shutdown costs of nationwide programs it often wouldn't be wise to cut some program by half one year and then restore it the next just to pay for a specific project, etc. Even states that have balanced budget amendments have room for such deficit spending. It's not what we should generally do, but I can easily think of cases where such flexibility would be good to have.

I also don't appreciate how a BBA would be used in practice, which would almost certainly be that Republicans would pass tax cuts with rosy revenue projections, and then demand social spending cuts when those revenues didn't appear.

1. I do appreciate your position. I'd have to study the BBAs currently used by some states to get a better understanding of how they work in practice; however...

2. ...I highly doubt that the gaming of such a system would be limited to any particular political party. They're two sides of the same fucked up coin. The only differences lie in their particular pet projects or supposed priorities.

Hence the reason I feel that deficit spending should be completely limited to national crisis -- doing so should become the very limited exception, not the rule.

I'm in favor of creating a whitelist of VERY specific exceptions.