Poll: Do we need a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the Constitution?

[Engineer]

Well, it seems that neither side, the tax and spend Democrats and the cut tax and spend Republicans, can get a grip on the rising budget deficits of this country. While dismissed sometimes as "necessary" or not really important, will the deficit provide enough harm to this country in the future to cause MAJOR problems?

Do we need a Constitutional Amendment for a Balanced Budget?

If so why?

If not...why not?

Many states have them and operate just fine. Why not the federal government?

(Edit: Subtract one from the NO side and move to the YES side...the dumbbutt OP accidentially hit the "NO" when testing the POLL! )

 

[3chordcharlie]

The last democratic government left with a rather large budget surplus, but that notwithstanding, I tend to disagree with balanced budgets being 'forced'. Economies are too unpredictable, and balanced budget legislation simply hand-cuffs governments.

Are balanced budgets important? Hell yes. Should they be legislated? I don't think they should.

 

[glugglug]

The deficit will eventually cause hyperinflation, to the point where ten dollar bills will be worth less than a penny is now, and will end up being used as toilet paper (because you can't afford the rolls).

 

[alchemize]

I think it would be fantastic. Something our forefathers didn't think about. Of course, that was because the concepts of economics that are taken for granted today were non-existant when the constitution was written.

 

[Infohawk]

I voted yes.

 

[crooked22]

Yeah, for it to be run like a household, if you dont got the money to buy it, you cannot buy it, or save until you can.

If things are too strapped, then maybe a referendum to see if the people approves of those expenditures.

 

[Rainsford]

I think forcing the government to have a balanced budget is a good idea. If people don't want to give the government enough money to do what the government wants to do, then the government probably doesn't need to be doing it. They serve the people, not the other way around. If the government really needs money for something, make the case to the people, I'm sure if it's necessary they would be alright with it.

Of course I'm no budget expert, but this seems like it would be a good idea.

 

[ntdz]

yes

 

[AFB]

Seems like a common ground.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ntdz
yes

Even if Bush couldn't finance the Iraq war?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy
Seems like a common ground.

I agree. Guess there might be SOME things we can agree on. And strangly enough, the problem is that the people may agree, but I doubt we'll have the government doing something about it any time soon.

Remember, this is Congress. Motto: Hey, it's not OUR money.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ntdz
yes

Even if Bush couldn't finance the Iraq war?

I think that would be perfect. If Bush could convince us that we need to keep fighting in Iraq, he could get the money. If he can't convince us, why are we there?

 

[jjzelinski]

Your "except for emergency" clause just rendered your hypothetical ammendment lame. Remember, we're still facing Bush's "Trifecta."

 

[klah]

They would break the spending cap anyway and force the USSC to raise taxes, which should not be under the purview of the judicial branch Just look at the fiasco in Nevada.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: amdfanboy
Seems like a common ground.

I agree. Guess there might be SOME things we can agree on. And strangly enough, the problem is that the people may agree, but I doubt we'll have the government doing something about it any time soon.

Remember, this is Congress. Motto: Hey, it's not OUR money.

I think it should have a little bit of wiggle room for things like economic downturns, but other than that, I agree.

 

[jjzelinski]

No, I don't think there should be an exception at all. If we need more money we raise taxes. Force our government to be accountable to itself. Simple as a pimple.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: crooked22If things are too strapped, then maybe a referendum to see if the people approves of those expenditures.

Except it will be like school levies: either vote for our tax increase, or we will cut all the useful programs while still having our expensive "administration leadership summit" in the budget. Ergo, Congress will pass a budget without money for the basics, but with money for every pork project that they have in the "regular" budget.

 

[jjzelinski]

To me I kind of equate "PAYGO" as aking to the free market. Taxpayers demands of both programs and minimal taxation without the recourse for deficit spending would keep our POS legislatures on their toes. If they can't figure it, get the f3ck rid of them and find someone who can.

 

[nRollo]

Govt should cut expenses to balance the budget, not raise revenue.

 

[Ozoned]

Wasn't the interstate Highway system built with borrowed money?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Wasn't the interstate Highway system built with borrowed money?

Not sure. If so, it was a great investment. The problem, IMO, is that we are now financing many good and BAD projects because we have so much debt that we cannot run the governement within it's own means. The choice is to raise taxes, cut spending or *gulp* borrow more money. It seems that nobody wants to raise taxes or cut spending.

Maybe I'm looney in thinking that the gravy train of borrowing will eventually crumble the very nation that we live in. I just don't know.

<----- Hates debt. Hopes to be debt free before the age of 38.

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: crooked22If things are too strapped, then maybe a referendum to see if the people approves of those expenditures.

Except it will be like school levies: either vote for our tax increase, or we will cut all the useful programs while still having our expensive "administration leadership summit" in the budget. Ergo, Congress will pass a budget without money for the basics, but with money for every pork project that they have in the "regular" budget.

And the next time these politicians were up for election...vote them out of office.

 

[joepa99]

I would say no to the Balanced Budget Amendment, but yes to the line item veto.

 

[crooked22]

the ruling administration could be force to be on the black ALL the time, if a project is indeed necesary, then a loan could be made. if the administration defaults in it, or gets in too much $$ problems, kickem out... obviously we can work on a deficit. kick the bad apples out as soon as they mess up

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: Engineer


Maybe I'm looney in thinking that the gravy train of borrowing will eventually crumble the very nation that we live in. I just don't know.

No it won't...when we claim "national bankruptcy" the debt holders will lose their shirts (e.g., China, Japan, U.K., Pimco, etc.) but within 1 or 2 years look how much money the U.S. will save by not having any interest payments on the ~$10+ Trillon worth of debt (my estimate of how much we'll owe after Bush's next 4 years). Federal taxes could be cut by ~45%.

Of course anyone trying to buy a house will have to pay ~30% interest rates but within a couple of years, the rates will be down to ~10% or so. If it works for Brazil, Argentina, etc., why not the U.S.?

By the way, if any politician thinks average Joe's like myself will pay 40%-50% federal tax rates in order to keep paying ever increasing $$$ to pay interest on the national debt, they will soon be out of work.

I'd rather the economy be screwed up for 1 or 2 years verses being railed for the rest of my life with unGodly tax rates.