Constitutional convention for federal balanced budget amendment

[Zaap]

and it's almost a mathematical certainty that eventually multiple trillion dollar deficits will also be sustainable.

LOL!
Too funny.
Sure, sure. Whatever your political overlords demand.

 

[cubby1223]

You realize we have already spent so much money on the military it would take other nations decades to catch up?

Does this mean we can safely cut back on our stockpiles of tomahawk & hellfire missiles?

Kidding!

 

[ElFenix]

LOL!
Too funny.
Sure, sure. Whatever your political overlords demand.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Article on foxnews,

Did Michigan just trigger 'constitutional convention'? Bid gains steam

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum/


Makes sense. If the federal government will not balance the budget and abolish the national debt, the states should force the federal government to do so.

It is pretty clear no president since Andrew Jackson has been interested in balancing the federal budget. Maybe it is time for states to take matters into their own hands.

The federal government should be prohibited from spending more money than it takes in.

Why?

 

[brycejones]

Does this mean we can safely cut back on our stockpiles of tomahawk & hellfire missiles?

Kidding!

No that would be an outrage at least in that thread. Here we'll bitch that defense spending needs to be cut.

If you want, intellectual consistency you'll need to look elsewhere than TH.

 

[Bitek]

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

Many states have balanced budget amendments. In Tennessee there is a $200 million shortfall in tax collections... so raises for state employees just got axed. This is exactly what the federal government needs. I know though that this type of amendment would cause more problems with government spending that it would solve though.

The problem is all the federal agencies never authorized to spend money in the first place keep growing exponentially.

Sounds like a great way to turn recessions into nasty depressions.

As ElFenix posted, it's a terrible, terrible idea. So what would we have done in 2009 then? Economic meltdown hits, so the federal govt has to close a $1T+ shortfall by... Cutting all economic stabilizers (unmpl ins, wic, etc), raising taxes, stop SSI payments, fire workers, ground the military, etc etc,... just as millions of people are out of work.

It's been working smashingly in Spain. Turn 10% unemployment into 25%

 

[Zaap]

*sniffle* It's just sooooo unfair to ask government to be responsible.

Massa gets it ALL! Everything massa wants, in *ANY* amount massa ever demands... AND THEN MORE!

The slave mentality people have is just mindblowing- but then you realize that's how the world works. Most people are sheep DEMANDING a master to seize everything and toss them some scraps. Most people are whores demanding a pimp.

 

[Generator]

The power/threat of the convention is what is important. If I had to guess D.C. would expose themselves toward de-legitimacy rather quickly.

 

[Matt1970]

it's a terribly stupid idea when you can run a few percent deficits from now until forever while still reducing the debt in the only measure that matters without removing your options and flexibility for crises. it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the federal government is funded and complete ignorance of macroeconomics.

I am sorry, you are going to have to explain to me how running deficits reduces the debt?

 

[Matt1970]

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Debt went up each year. That's not a surplus.

Adjusted for inflation, he ran a surplus. In raw numbers he ran a deficit.

We were also raiding the Social Security till at the time. Never mind the fact that the supposed "surplus" didn't happen till almost 5 years after the tax increase and right back down a few years later. Tech Bubble anyone?

 

[her209]

*sniffle* It's just sooooo unfair to ask government to be responsible.

Massa gets it ALL! Everything massa wants, in *ANY* amount massa ever demands... AND THEN MORE!

The slave mentality people have is just mindblowing- but then you realize that's how the world works. Most people are sheep DEMANDING a master to seize everything and toss them some scraps. Most people are whores demanding a pimp.

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.

 

[boomerang]

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.

It is their money and they can't take it with them. Why do you oppose people spending money they earned in a manner that pleases them? Do you feel that people are incapable of running their own lives? That only government knows the "correct" way to spend?

 

[blankslate]

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.



.....

 

[Anarchist420]

a better idea would be to strip the u.s.g. of its ability to tax or create tender.

 

[blankslate]

a better idea would be to strip the u.s.g. of its ability to tax or create tender.

No the proposed 28th amendment is actually just as good if not better than your pithy suggestion.

The government has the authority to mint coins but not print paper money and reasons (and how good or bad they are) could be better debated in the discussion forum imo.



.....

 

[Texashiker]

Does this mean we can safely cut back on our stockpiles of tomahawk & hellfire missiles?

Kidding!

Good point.

But what we can cut back on is nuclear weapons.

I forget the exact numbers. But it was something like 1 IBCM would pay for 1/2, or even all of the college for every student in the nation?

And we have thousands of ICBMs. How many times do we need to destroy the world?

How many aircraft carriers do we need?

We are not the worlds police force, why do we need so many drones?

 

[bshole]

^^^^^

good point.
Why do we need so many drones?

 

[Zaap]

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.

I see government suck-ups as just as mindless (if not moreso) as the same type of mindless suck-up that would want the pope and some bunch of robe wearing pedophiles to control everything and steal endless amounts of everyone's money.

 

[QuantumPion]

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.

I'm surprised so many liberals are in favor of making corporations immune to being sued in court, be responsible for damages, defective products, etc. I mean I thought liberals hated corporations, but here they are demanding they be given all sorts of immense privileges and power by taking away their responsibilities associated with legal personhood.

 

[ElFenix]

I am sorry, you are going to have to explain to me how running deficits reduces the debt?

as a percentage GDP, if the economy is growing at a rate faster than the debt, the debt to GDP ratio falls. this isn't hard math.

We were also raiding the Social Security till at the time. Never mind the fact that the supposed "surplus" didn't happen till almost 5 years after the tax increase and right back down a few years later. Tech Bubble anyone?

thanks ronnie!

*sniffle* It's just sooooo unfair to ask government to be responsible.

Massa gets it ALL! Everything massa wants, in *ANY* amount massa ever demands... AND THEN MORE!

The slave mentality people have is just mindblowing- but then you realize that's how the world works. Most people are sheep DEMANDING a master to seize everything and toss them some scraps. Most people are whores demanding a pimp.

a balanced budget amendment is not asking government to be responsible.

 

[Incorruptible]

Sounds like a great way to turn recessions into nasty depressions.

As ElFenix posted, it's a terrible, terrible idea. So what would we have done in 2009 then? Economic meltdown hits, so the federal govt has to close a $1T+ shortfall by... Cutting all economic stabilizers (unmpl ins, wic, etc), raising taxes, stop SSI payments, fire workers, ground the military, etc etc,... just as millions of people are out of work.

It's been working smashingly in Spain. Turn 10% unemployment into 25%

Keep spouting BS. They didn't cut spending and there was no austerity.

 

[ElFenix]

Keep spouting BS. They didn't cut spending and there was no austerity.

spanish government spending fell from 57 billion euros in the second quarter of 2010 to 49.5 billion euros in the fourth quarter of 2012. it went up a bit over the last couple years but for the most recent quarter it's back down to 49.5 billion euros.


why do you feel the need to lie about easily verifiable facts?

 

[Incorruptible]

spanish government spending fell from 57 billion euros in the second quarter of 2010 to 49.5 billion euros in the fourth quarter of 2012. it went up a bit over the last couple years but for the most recent quarter it's back down to 49.5 billion euros.


why do you feel the need to lie about easily verifiable facts?

There is a difference between cutting spending and cutting the increase in spending. What did they do with taxes.

 

[ElFenix]

There is a difference between cutting spending and cutting the increase in spending. What did they do with taxes.

spain cut spending in absolute terms. not a cut in the rate of growth.

again, why do you feel the need to lie about easily verifiable facts?

 

[Incorruptible]

spain cut spending in absolute terms. not a cut in the rate of growth.

again, why do you feel the need to lie about easily verifiable facts?

You conveniently forgot to mention they also raised taxes though. What is wrong with balancing the budget 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.