Senate Joint Resolution 10. aka balanced budget amendment

[Jaskalas]

I agree that the particular text of the amendment smells funny. So go on, propose your own. You'd do that if you actually cared about the details but agreed with the overall goal. I'm betting the Dems do not.

Party of no, is it?

 

[fskimospy]

I agree that the particular text of the amendment smells funny. So go on, propose your own. You'd do that if you actually cared about the details but agreed with the overall goal. I'm betting the Dems do not.

Party of no, is it?

So wait, saying no an amendment that would make one party be able to easily say no to huge swaths of legislation is being the 'party of no' now?

Come on, people.

 

[rudder]

Exactly, it's just an attempt to make an end run on the democratic process, tilting things towards Republican goals of less government that the people haven't voted for.

What a dumb idea.

Most of those people are the ones who rely too much on the government.... the same ones with little or no federal income tax liability. The same ones that need to get off the government teet.

 

[rudder]

Hey, look who doesn't know anything about California's budget situation.

Prop 13 and it's bastard child prop 98 have had a large, direct influence on the budget problems California has had. (they are the poster children for why the proposition system should be abolished) That and the fact that for years California required a simple majority to pass new spending, but a supermajority to pass taxes to pay for it.

Because California's budget problems have nothing to do with the state relying on too much on the uber wealthy for their revenue. When economy goes south... so does their earnings hurting the state's bottom line.

At least California should require a supermajority for new spending.

 

[JTsyo]

It might also need a clause for when tax incomes drop drastically as in 2008. Something like an exception so that cuts don't exceed 15% of last year's outlays.
Also if there's a surplus then taxes don't get cut unless there's no outstanding debt. Maybe even carry over some money year to year to save up for a bad year. Though that would never work with government.

 

[fskimospy]

Because California's budget problems have nothing to do with the state relying on too much on the uber wealthy for their revenue. When economy goes south... so does their earnings hurting the state's bottom line.

At least California should require a supermajority for new spending.

California's budget problems are directly related to prop 13 and prop 98. I've said this on here many times before.

States are big fans of property taxes because they provide stable revenue from year to year. It makes it easy to plan. Prop 13 destroyed the property tax base of California, which made the state turn to other sources of revenue. (people didn't think they would just tax less, did they!?) What they turned to were things like sales taxes and capital gains tax. These things give GREAT revenue when the economy is doing well, and they give HORRIBLE revenues when it turns south, which makes their tax base extremely unstable. Prop 98 just makes this worse by mandating school spending.

I mean if you look at California's state fiscal situation the state does really well during the 90's stock boom, then really well again during the mid 2000's real estate boom, with a catastrophe every time the economy turns south. It's just a horrible way to generate tax revenues, and prop 13 is significantly to blame.

 

[fskimospy]

Most of those people are the ones who rely too much on the government.... the same ones with little or no federal income tax liability. The same ones that need to get off the government teet.

First of all as is mentioned to you over and over again, you only focus on the income tax because it serves your ideological point. People in lower income brackets pay plenty of taxes for other things.

Second of all, who cares what they pay in taxes? This is either an end run around democracy or it isn't. You appear to be agreeing that it is, but find it ok due to the amount that people contribute to the federal tax base. Are you advocating for a tax requirement for voting rights?

 

[rudder]

First of all as is mentioned to you over and over again, you only focus on the income tax because it serves your ideological point. People in lower income brackets pay plenty of taxes for other things.

Second of all, who cares what they pay in taxes? This is either an end run around democracy or it isn't. You appear to be agreeing that it is, but find it ok due to the amount that people contribute to the federal tax base. Are you advocating for a tax requirement for voting rights?

I focus on income tax because we are discussing the federal budget. Everyone in Tennessee, in my case, pay taxes for other things... sales tax, property tax, etc. That tax revenue goes to the state/local municipalities. If there are two families... one pays $8000/year in food. They are taxed close to 10% so say $800. The other pays $8000/year in food, again $800 for taxes. One family is eligible to file for Earned Income Credit, the other does not. One family gets free school lunches one does not. One family gets free pre-k school services, one family does not. One family can apply for Tenncare (TN's healthcare plan), one family cannot. So lower income brackets do pay taxes, but they get quite a bit back in terms of services.

I am not advocating any sort of requirement for voting rights. I am advocating there be a budget amendment that is tied to GDP. If this means entitlements are reduced... so be it. Taxing people more so the government can spend more is crazy. If I have $100 extra in my pocket each month... what do you think will do more to stimulate the economy? Me spending that $100 on eating out, clothes, movies... or sending it to the Federal Government so 15 cents of each dollar can find its way into the local economy of buttmunch, WV?

 

[fskimospy]

I focus on income tax because we are discussing the federal budget. Everyone in Tennessee, in my case, pay taxes for other things... sales tax, property tax, etc. That tax revenue goes to the state/local municipalities. If there are two families... one pays $8000/year in food. They are taxed close to 10% so say $800. The other pays $8000/year in food, again $800 for taxes. One family is eligible to file for Earned Income Credit, the other does not. One family gets free school lunches one does not. One family gets free pre-k school services, one family does not. One family can apply for Tenncare (TN's healthcare plan), one family cannot. So lower income brackets do pay taxes, but they get quite a bit back in terms of services.

I am not advocating any sort of requirement for voting rights. I am advocating there be a budget amendment that is tied to GDP. If this means entitlements are reduced... so be it. Taxing people more so the government can spend more is crazy. If I have $100 extra in my pocket each month... what do you think will do more to stimulate the economy? Me spending that $100 on eating out, clothes, movies... or sending it to the Federal Government so 15 cents of each dollar can find its way into the local economy of buttmunch, WV?

So you're not putting in a requirement for voting rights, but you are advocating for an amendment that directly works to counter the legislation that these people would vote for. Like I said, it's an end run around democracy.

 

[ProfJohn]

Hey, look who doesn't know anything about California's budget situation.

Prop 13 and it's bastard child prop 98 have had a large, direct influence on the budget problems California has had. (they are the poster children for why the proposition system should be abolished) That and the fact that for years California required a simple majority to pass new spending, but a supermajority to pass taxes to pay for it.]/b]

That seems like this way it should be.

The ability to take money from the population should be severely restricted otherwise the government will just tax the population to death.

 

[ProfJohn]

except for provision 2, i like this bill. I dont think 18% is a realistic number, as that would cut our budget nearly 30%, which I dont think is reasonable at this juncture in time. maybe like 22% is more realistic.

22% is way too high.

The highest amount of revenue collected in our history was 20%.

And prior to Obama spending had been below 20% since the early 1990s.
I think a lot of people don't realize how much spending has grown under Obama.

 

[ProfJohn]

States are big fans of property taxes because they provide stable revenue from year to year.

pssst.... property taxes are local only in California. NONE of that money goes to the state.

The only way it effects the state is that less property tax at the local level means less money to spend on schools at the local level and hence more spending needed at state level.

 

[sandorski]

Legislated arbitrary limits pulled from someone's ass are just a bad idea. No one knows what the future will bring, shackling legislators of the future can have dire consequences.

Given the Republican penchant for simple minded ideas controlling everything, if their policy were implemented in whole, you could just replace Government with a Computer. Not a Super Computer even, but a '80's Casio wrist watch. That tech cost $15 back then, just imagine how cheap it would be now!

 

[Pulsar]

Wait a second. I can't believe I'm reading this.

Since when would limiting the yearly budget to a certain % of the country's output (which would account for inflation, etc) give ANY minority more power?

I read through this posting and I see a bunch of people arguing smoke and mirrors and BS.

How simple is it to balance your fucking checkbook people? If Outgoing > Incoming, you're pretty well fucked. But that's BAD at the government level?

Holy shit.

 

[senseamp]

Wait a second. I can't believe I'm reading this.

Since when would limiting the yearly budget to a certain % of the country's output (which would account for inflation, etc) give ANY minority more power?

I read through this posting and I see a bunch of people arguing smoke and mirrors and BS.

How simple is it to balance your fucking checkbook people? If Outgoing > Incoming, you're pretty well fucked. But that's BAD at the government level?

Holy shit.

How about reading the bill before going on a rant?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Interesting tidbit,

If peole paid there taxes without cheating, the deficit would quickly get taken care of.

 

[Engineer]

I used to be 110% for a balanced budget amendment but Charrison talked me out of it slightly. Maybe one in that if Congress has to go over, each and every tax paying citizen is sent a bill for their portion over the balance point. Wonder how well that would go over, lol?!?

 

[bfdd]

WE have a 27th Amendment that says the Congressional houses can not raise their salary till they have all been elected or re-elected, so there has NOT been an official Congressional pay raise since 18 MAY 1992, when the 27th Amendment was ratified.

The pay of Congressional members then was $133,000. Now with the 27th Amendment and NO official pay raise, their pay is $174,500.

LOL!

....and you think a Balanced Budget Amendment will have any effect?

LOL!

true, i like how it says it's all basically null and void if we're at war as well. they'll just keep us at war then so they can spend to their hearts delight.


Also, any bill that's going to be put in place to require a balanced budget needs to have tax reform attached to it as well. Flatten out every tax to the same percentage and get rid of any write offs or tax breaks. Once the top guys are paying 25% vs the 0-10% they write themselves down to, things might get back in order.

 

[tweaker2]

Bottom line: Repubs want to sustain/improve the legislative loop that allows them to continually divert control of the government's revenues into the hands of the rich which in return gives the rich ever more leverage and power to control the government....and on and on and on.

All of their scheming, conniving, lying and deception is only meant to further that cause.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm on the fence with an amendment to balance the budget. I'm a definite "no" at putting an arbitrary limit on government spending as a percentage of GDP. The first is about fiscal responsibility, i.e. you do not spend more than you take in. The second is about republican ideology, period.

My only reticence about the balanced budget part is that I feel the government should be able to deficit spend during an economic downturn, then be required to pay off the debt when the economy comes back, and keep it balanced until the next downturn. That ideally is how it should work, but I can't see any way to craft an amendment to put that kind of system into place.

 

[chucky2]

true, i like how it says it's all basically null and void if we're at war as well. they'll just keep us at war then so they can spend to their hearts delight.


Also, any bill that's going to be put in place to require a balanced budget needs to have tax reform attached to it as well. Flatten out every tax to the same percentage and get rid of any write offs or tax breaks. Once the top guys are paying 25% vs the 0-10% they write themselves down to, things might get back in order.

Easy fix to that:

Any war or military conflict/action we're in is an additional tax on Everyone's paycheck. This covers the cost of those war(s)/actions/conflicts, and it shows each and every taxpayer how much these policies are costing us.

Problem solved.

 

[Jhhnn]

Enjoyed by the rest of the bankrupt world. Those safety nets only exist in their current form as pyramid schemes. It's guaranteed to collapse and no longer exist one day.

Make it THIS day, before the currency goes with.

Utterly fallacious. Unlike the US, the Eurozone runs a neutral or near neutral balance of trade, and Germany is still the world's leading exporter, with a very positive balance of trade. They're not letting their ultra-rich citizens suck their economy dry, either, export their capital and jobs offshore. Other than the PIIGS, they can afford the systems they have.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Wait a second. I can't believe I'm reading this.

Since when would limiting the yearly budget to a certain % of the country's output (which would account for inflation, etc) give ANY minority more power?

I read through this posting and I see a bunch of people arguing smoke and mirrors and BS.

No, the haze is just between your ears.

The government will likely go over the set GDP limit, as a civilized society likes the stability of guaranteed entitlements. This puts tremendous power in the hands of the minority, as you cannot have that spending bill without their support. So each year they could dictate the terms under which they'll allow the majority to get what they want out of government. So each year all the little Pol Pots will band together and hold the government hostage.

 

[HomerJS]

If this had been proposed during 2001-2008, I would have taken the propsers seriously.

I may start a poll that asks does the GOP really want a balanced budget amendment or are they more interested in throwing a monkey wrench into the administration.

 

[bfdd]

Easy fix to that:

Any war or military conflict/action we're in is an additional tax on Everyone's paycheck. This covers the cost of those war(s)/actions/conflicts, and it shows each and every taxpayer how much these policies are costing us.

Problem solved.

That doesn't solve the problem whatsoever, that just helps make us aware of what we're spending. They'll find some way to dress it up and make it look like nothing and wars will continue.