Balance Budget Ammendment and not allowing Revenue Increase

[DRSmith]

So if some got there way and there was balance budget ammendment what would happen in times of crisis and war?

If all balancing and debt reduction has to come as the result of spending cuts what happens when the cuts result in even lower revenues and more unemployment?

[Prosperity]

we would find a way to ignore the amendment

[Kindred]

yes its retarded. Cutting governments spending = cutting govt jobs.

[Hubbs]

I'm sure there would be some provision for major wars.

[DRSmith]

yes its retarded. Cutting governments spending = cutting govt jobs.

That is true when you look at what happened to the over all employment numbers as states started cutting it showed lower employment numbers

---------- Post added July-18th-2011 at 01:19 PM ----------

I'm sure there would be some provision for major wars.

Will there what about disastors

[Prosperity]

any amendment that doesn't include some "emergency" provision would be too risky to make sense

any emergency provisions would be so vague that it could be routinely used as a loophole

[NavyDave]

Spending cuts resulting in lower revenues?

I don't get it.

You spend less, Taxes do not rise, the private sector creates more jobs which means more private sector workers and more people to tax which in turn means more loot err Tax revenue for the government.

In 20 or so years when there is another crisis in Afghanistan I'm sure we will not spend close to half a trillion on the place and just use Afghanistan as an example to others by turning it into a lake because by then politicians will be smart enough to fight to win which means getting the heck out of the way of the military.

*** And they will be able to do it cheaper and smarter.

[Hubbs]

Will there what about disastors

Like what? How much money did the federal government actually spend on Katrina relief? I doubt it amounted to anything that would even approach significant in terms of the size of the federal budget. If you're thinking more along the lines of, say, Yellowstone erupting, I don't really think we're going to be concerned about the government's budget at that point. We'd probably be concerned about whether or not there would be a country left to govern.

[DRSmith]

So I cut jobs and contract that in tunr cuts the amount of money people have to spend which leads to lower demand and more cuts

So I collect taxes from the person I employ

I collet taxes on the products they buy

I collect taxes from the persons that are employed as a result of their purchasing

And so on and on

[Teller]

any amendment that doesn't include some "emergency" provision would be too risky to make sense

any emergency provisions would be so vague that it could be routinely used as a loophole

And that, as far as I can tell, is exactly what we do now.

Weren't Iraq and Afghanistan "exempted" from the annual federal budget under Bush? I'm not sure if it's changed or not. But to me, not "counting" some of your biggest expenditures is pretty ridiculous. It's akin to figuring up your personal monthly budget, but leaving out your mortgage and car payment.

[DRSmith]

Like what? How much money did the federal government actually spend on Katrina relief? I doubt it amounted to anything that would even approach significant in terms of the size of the federal budget. If you're thinking more along the lines of, say, Yellowstone erupting, I don't really think we're going to be concerned about the government's budget at that point. We'd probably be concerned about whether or not there would be a country left to govern.

And yet Cantor was complaining about govt spending in the wake of Joplin

[Henry]

any amendment that doesn't include some "emergency" provision would be too risky to make sense

any emergency provisions would be so vague that it could be routinely used as a loophole

Lindsay Graham was on CNN yesterday and said that if there were some sort of crisis (depression, war, etc.) that Congress could override the amendment for a year with 2/3rds vote.

Or something.

[DRSmith]

Lindsay Graham was on CNN yesterday and said that if there were some sort of crisis (depression, war, etc.) that Congress could override the amendment for a year with 2/3rds vote.

Or something.

Given the current state of things that does not say much

[@DCGoldPants]

how about an Amendment that creates term limits for The House and Senate?

[sacase]

how about an Amendment that creates term limits for The House and Senate?

Anyway this can be brought to a popular vote. I bet it would pass all 50 states!

[Hubbs]

how about an Amendment that creates term limits for The House and Senate?

I think we've had that discussion in a couple other threads recently, and some people would be strongly against term limits. Personally, I think they're a fantastic idea.

[PeterMP]

any amendment that doesn't include some "emergency" provision would be too risky to make sense

any emergency provisions would be so vague that it could be routinely used as a loophole

You tie the amount of debt/defeciet in the budget as a percentage of GDP to the number of votes needed to pass the budget in both houses of congress. There is nothing vague about algebraic equations.

In a real emergency, a large percentage of people should be willing to vote to defeciet spend, and it should pass almost irregardless what the debt/defeciet is. If the emergency is more dubious and it will be a function of the existing debt, you'll have issues. I'd have no problem with that provision being over ruled by an act of war passed by congress. In other words, a 51/49 vote by the senate would allow any budget to be passed, if Congress also passed an act of war by a 51/49 vote (and whatever the corresponding vote totals would be in the HR).

[DRSmith]

You need to do more than balance the budget you need to run surpluses to pay off the debt unless you want to make debt repayment part of the budget

[Ignatius J.]

I think we've had that discussion in a couple other threads recently, and some people would be strongly against term limits. Personally, I think they're a fantastic idea.

Count me out. From what I can tell the freshmen in the house are about 90% of the problem right now.

[December90]

So if some got there way and there was balance budget ammendment what would happen in times of crisis and war?

If all balancing and debt reduction has to come as the result of spending cuts what happens when the cuts result in even lower revenues and more unemployment?

so to take your ridiculous example to the other extreme, in order to achieve perfection, we need only to have everyone in the nation working for the Government.

What part of "our government has gotten too big" do you fail to comprehend? We have government people doing things that they simply should not be doing. We have redundant agencies that should be eliminated for their waste and lack of usefulness. If we eliminate their positions within government those people will have to compete for work with "private" employers (you know those evil corporations that provide the corporate tax revenue and taxable income to individuals that fund this bloated behemoth that our government has become.)

if you actually believe that simply cutting government spending will have both the short-term and long-term impact of raising unemployment, then you are beyond help and should remain in your beloved Canada.

In your mind how much of the nations economy is too much for the government to take in in taxes? in your mind is there such a thing as too much government?

(since this is coming off as very anti-government, I feel I should say that I find that their is a role for Government, we have just exceeded what that role should be and should go back to a smaller federal government nearly across the board.)

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 08:55 AM ----------

Count me out. From what I can tell the freshmen in the house are about 90% of the problem right now.

When everyone is used to standing in ankle deep :pooh:, you need some fresh faces to come in and remind people that the situation stinks and that change is needed.

It appears to me that you are simply comfortable with the previous stench of Pelosi and her "leadership" and now you seem to find some fresh air offensive???

Something has to change in our government and the entrenched old-timers are not going to be the ones to change it.

[Thiebear]

I look at this like the Universal Health Care bill: It's not the best thing available, but its the only thing on the table.

You can fix it after its passed.

The Senate hasn't passed anything since 2009.

That Biden commission was a setup to get us to the edge so its too late to do anything other than raise the ceiling.

The commission setup by the President was ignored.

If i remember correctly the 2010 election was the largest victory in 70+ years based on overspending?

how bout those elected fight to fix it in simple ways.

example: just remove the One tiny clause in the Paygo bill about ignoring it if Congress wishes (both parties do this together with a wink/nod).

[Prosperity]

You tie the amount of debt/defeciet in the budget as a percentage of GDP to the number of votes needed to pass the budget in both houses of congress. There is nothing vague about algebraic equations.

In a real emergency, a large percentage of people should be willing to vote to defeciet spend, and it should pass almost irregardless what the debt/defeciet is. If the emergency is more dubious and it will be a function of the existing debt, you'll have issues. I'd have no problem with that provision being over ruled by an act of war passed by congress. In other words, a 51/49 vote by the senate would allow any budget to be passed, if Congress also passed an act of war by a 51/49 vote (and whatever the corresponding vote totals would be in the HR).

the "emergency" provision would be vague, the ceiling part would be straightforward enough

might be nice to have congress declaring wars again though, might be a nice way to curtail executive power (but do we really want that?)

[bird_1972]

Lindsay Graham was on CNN yesterday and said that if there were some sort of crisis (depression, war, etc.) that Congress could override the amendment for a year with 2/3rds vote.

Or something.

By the time Congress could mobilize to get the 2/3rds majority needed, I can imagine the situation (ie crisis) would worsen considerably.

That's not a very effective means of dealing with unexpected events that require immediate outlays of cash.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 09:26 AM ----------

When everyone is used to standing in ankle deep :pooh:, you need some fresh faces to come in and remind people that the situation stinks and that change is needed.

It appears to me that you are simply comfortable with the previous stench of Pelosi and her "leadership" and now you seem to find some fresh air offensive???

Something has to change in our government and the entrenched old-timers are not going to be the ones to change it.

As is always the case, the best solution is somewhere in between. But thanks for doing your best to validate these incompetent fools known as the "Tea Party" (whatever that is, exactly) - to follow their path would be to sacrifice our country's long term economic well being for ideological purity (rooted in naivite)

[repo_4]

Count me out. From what I can tell the freshmen in the house are about 90% of the problem right now.

So you would rather rely on the carreer politicians that have put us in this mess over the years? And I'm not blaming one party over the other here.

[SkinsHokieFan]

In a little over a decade we have more then doubled the budget.

In 1999 the federal budget was 1.7 trillion

In 2011 we are talking about a 3.82 trillion dollar federal budget