Constitutional convention for federal balanced budget amendment

[ElFenix]

You conveniently forgot to mention they also raised taxes though.

what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? you claimed they didn't do austerity and didn't cut spending. the fact of the matter is that they DID cut spending. you lie about it and then try divert when called out on your lies.

They didn't cut spending

is a complete lie.

i wouldn't be shocked if your claim about taxes is also a lie.

hey, look what the financial times has to say about spanish taxes:

Spain’s tax take has held up especially poorly during the recent crisis, according to data from Fedea, a Madrid-based think-tank. It found that tax revenue fell from 41 per cent of GDP in 2007 to 37 per cent in 2012.

What is wrong with balancing the budget

nothing is wrong with balancing the budget if it can be done in a way that doesn't hurt the economy and make for worse long term economic activity.

other than the special interest groups and leeches can't steal from the taxpayer. You're a liberal so of course you're against spending cuts.

hey, more useless partisan bullshit.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Sounds more like every church out there. They say that more money is needed to build a bigger church and the sheeple just keep giving away their money to build their multi-million dollar mansions thinking their "massa" will reward them after they stop breathing.

So you agree that many people have traded one religion for another, i.e. politics, political parties and a blind faith belief in government and politicians.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

There's really only one thing that really needs to be done.

A constitutional convention opens up the process to all kinds of oligarch funded shens.

Just add the 28th Amendment in the same manner in which the previous 17 were added after the Constitution was written.

Have it say "Corporations are not people. Money is not free speech. It would help keep money from buying politicians.


But it seems some people are fine with it because the money would buy the politicians they like.



.....

That is just a bullshit because if you haven't noticed unions (especially public unions) have in the past bought and paid for politicians and many were and are still in their pockets in many states and at the federal level.

This notion that somehow money was not flooding into the system before that particular USSC ruling is pretty much false. Here's a hint: Politicians have always been political whores for hire and government's out of control growth has been the vehicle which they have used to expand their appeal to a broader market of interests looking to steer an increasingly bigger and more intrusive government toward their interests and agenda if possible. Or at the very least prevent the 900 lb gorilla that is big government from crushing them.

 

[Incorruptible]

That is just a bullshit because if you haven't noticed unions (especially public unions) have in the past bought and paid for politicians and many were and are still in their pockets in many states and at the federal level.

This notion that somehow money was not flooding into the system before that particular USSC ruling is pretty much false. Here's a hint: Politicians have always been political whores for hire and government's out of control growth has been the vehicle which they have used to expand their appeal to a broader market of interests looking to steer a increasingly bigger and more intrusive government toward their interests and agenda if possible. Or at the very least prevent 900 lb gorilla that is government from crushing them.

Why does the left keep spouting this nonsense though. Even before CU this was still happening yet these idiots keep repeating that it's the fault of CU.

 

[BoberFett]

It's stupid to balance a budget on a yearly basis. Some years are up, some years are down. On a ten or twenty year basis? Maybe.

 

[bshole]

It's stupid to balance a budget on a yearly basis. Some years are up, some years are down. On a ten or twenty year basis? Maybe.

There you have it from our resident financial analyst. Thank you for that Bob.

 

[DrPizza]

there's 0 need to balance the budget. a balanced budget amendment is a terrifically bad idea.

It's a bad idea to anyone who has taken even a basic macroeconomics course, which I suspect the OP hasn't.

Why does the left keep spouting this nonsense though. Even before CU this was still happening yet these idiots keep repeating that it's the fault of CU.

Why don't you apologize for telling lies here? You got caught and won't even own up to it. I guess that's why you're considered to be one of the biggest trolls here.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

We don't have the political intelligence to pull off a Constitutional Convention. Such an endeavor would be doomed by the political shallowness of our times. Once a convention is convened there would be no limit to the damage it could do.

On the issue of a balanced federal budget, that is the last thing the states want. Under the current system state level politicians can call "For shame, for shame!" at Congress while the honey still flows to the states. The feds do the dirty work of tax collection and borrowing for the benefit of the states.

People being intentionally misinformed does not equal political shallowness.

 

[Anarchist420]

there are actually other, better things that could be done to reduce the size of the U.S.G. than a BBA. The 16th could be repealed and replaced with nothing, which along with the Brown Amendment, the strongest Bricker Amendment, and an anti-welfare Amendment would be a lot better than any BBA that has been proposed.

ideally, the U.S.G. would have its powers to tax and create tender abolished, and only be allowed to borrow gold then decentralize all its debts based upon representation.
but that will never happen because the purpose of the executive power is so that taxes can be collected.

It's a bad idea to anyone who has taken even a basic macroeconomics course, which I suspect the OP hasn't.

can you explain how a basic macroeconomics course says a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea?

 

[schmuckley]

I would like to know how not spending more money than is taken in is a bad idea as well.

 

[Greenman]

I would like to know how not spending more money than is taken in is a bad idea as well.

A few around here have explained it, and honestly it doesn't make any sense to me, perhaps I'm simply not educated enough to understand it.

 

[fskimospy]

I would like to know how not spending more money than is taken in is a bad idea as well.

While that's something a balanced budget amendment does, it also does a whole bunch of other things.

If you are required to have a balanced budget that means that the government is unable to react to economic or security crises effectively. As has already been mentioned in this thread, the requirement for a balanced budget would have meant that in the face of the largest recession in our lifetimes that the US government would have cut spending by more than $1 trillion. That would have turned a bad recession into a catastrophic depression.

People usually say "well you can put something in it where it can be overridden". Considering the Republicans in Congress at this time I see a substantial possibility of that not happening.

All this overlooks the fact that debt/GDP ratio is what is important anyway, as well.

 

[Incorruptible]

I would like to know how not spending more money than is taken in is a bad idea as well.

It isn't bad but too many leeches want to steal other peoples money for themselves and spend it on idiotic programs. A balanced budget will make this a little harder so of course they're against it.

 

[brycejones]

It isn't bad but too many leeches want to steal other peoples money for themselves and spend it on idiotic programs. A balanced budget will make this a little harder so of course they're against it.

Thank you for your deeply researched and insightful analysis of the topic at hand.

 

[Fern]

Enough with the FUD :

Most balanced-budget provisions make an exception for times of war, national emergency, or recession, or allow the legislature to suspend the rule by a supermajority vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget_amendment

The USA doesn't balance the budget even when the economy is roaring and tax revenues are at all time high.

Accordingly, a typical balanced budget amendment like noted above may well be a good idea.

When the economy is overheated, reducing federal spending (reducing demand) may be as good or better then just jacking up interest rates to calm it down.

Fern

 

[Vic]

can you explain how a basic macroeconomics course says a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea?

Borrowed capital is how money is made.

 

[Zaap]

Enough with the FUD :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget_amendment

The USA doesn't balance the budget even when the economy is roaring and tax revenues are at all time high.

Accordingly, a typical balanced budget amendment like noted above may well be a good idea.

When the economy is overheated, reducing federal spending (reducing demand) may be as good or better then just jacking up interest rates to calm it down.

Fern

Stop posting reality and common sense. Massa needs all the money!!!!

 

[Incorruptible]

Thank you for your deeply researched and insightful analysis of the topic at hand.

Thanks! It's nice to see that even liberals like yourself will acknowledge me

 

[IronWing]

Enough with the FUD :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget_amendment

The USA doesn't balance the budget even when the economy is roaring and tax revenues are at all time high.

Accordingly, a typical balanced budget amendment like noted above may well be a good idea.

When the economy is overheated, reducing federal spending (reducing demand) may be as good or better then just jacking up interest rates to calm it down.

Fern

Balanced budget amendments with super-majority provisions are not balanced budget amendments. A super-majority is semantically equivalent to super-minority. Such a provision is a gimmick designed to give a political minority power out of proportion to it's pull at the polls.

Likewise, an exemption for time of war provides a perverse incentive to go to war. Going to war should be a decision that hurts right here, right now. If a party advocating war can't get the votes to pay for the war then the case for war is weak indeed.

 

[Vic]

The US hasn't actually "gone to war" since 1941.

 

[IronWing]

The US hasn't actually "gone to war" since 1941.

That is a different problem: a craven Congress that refuses to rein in the President (any President). Presidential power grows in direct response to the unwillingness of Congress to do its job.