Balance Budget Ammendment and not allowing Revenue Increase

[DRSmith]

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 ----------

.

There has to be a balance government can get smaller with a provision of over sight and in should handle that which is best having the matter socialized.

People complain about the size of government but fail to understand the nation has grown and the world has changed

The same people who throughout the world complain about paying for the services they get like educated work force and militaries to protect their interest

Government can be cut as can government spending with a healthy well regulated private sector, but since they tend to influence government too much and rules are made to benefit the few.

[bird_1972]

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

Sobering statistics, to say the least.

While I understand the importance in addressing the problem, some of the draconian proposals being forwarded by the relatively inexperienced folks in the house are irresponsible. That said, a balance needs to be struck between the desire to get something done and sticking our heads in the sand. The key is not simply getting something done, but doing something that makes long-term sense rather than the typical short-sighted problem solving that is the calling card in politics (and corporate decision-making) today.

[DRSmith]

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

Wars are not cheap niether is fixing the mess made by what happens in the financial sectors

[bird_1972]

Wars are not cheap niether is fixing the mess made by what happens in the financial sectors

I think we as a country needs to be held to a much more stringent set of guidelines for entering into armed conflict.

Not only have we consistently shrugged off the monetary costs of these "wars" but also the cost to soldiers and their families. Is the ROI worth it??

[SkinsHokieFan]

Wars are not cheap niether is fixing the mess made by what happens in the financial sectors

Do you actually expect the budget to ever get below 3.82 trillion ever again?

[AsburySkinsFan]

They'd either ignore the amendment or make a war time exception in the amendment. If there were no war time exception then they'd have to sell war bonds which would really dictate whether or not we really went to war, it would also dictate when such wars would end. In that light I'm not sure that it's an entirely bad idea, but you can kiss good bye to having the highest priced standing army in the world.

[DRSmith]

I think we as a country needs to be held to a much more stringent set of guidelines for entering into armed conflict.

Not only have we consistently shrugged off the monetary costs of these "wars" but also the cost to soldiers and their families. Is the ROI worth it??

One Republican suggestion put forth by Joe Scarborough I agree with is any deleration of war comes with automatic tax increses to pay for said war, this will have people thinking before heading to war

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 09:59 AM ----------

Do you actually expect the budget to ever get below 3.82 trillion ever again?

Federally it could be, but there would have to changes to defense and how you handle medicare and medeicaid

Oh and if you do get rid of your debt you cut your interest payments and with it your budget

[Fred Jones]

It's unfortunate that I can't go back in time and post this thread on 9-12-01 and see what type of reaction I would get.

And, I hope we pass all the tea party policies. Reduce Social Security, reduce Medicare and Medicaid, eliminate pork barrel spending, reduce overall spending to states.

I want to see what happens to all the right wing people and tea party people that no longer receive their government money. I think they should then go get a better paying job/a second job/leave retirement ect.

Perhaps we could tap into the Federal retirement system. Take away from retired government workers from the civil service and military. Why should they benefit from my tax dollars? Tell them to go get a private job? I was just told lots and lots of private jobs will be created with all this spending cuts so when I take back my tax money to save me money they can simply go get one of those available private sector jobs to make up the lost difference.

My solution you ask? Pain across the board. Pain everywhere. Cutting spending is just half pain. And, to add to the pain everywhere, enlarge the AMT to include everyone. All the people that currently don't pay taxes should have to pay a minimum amount. Not a lot mind you, but a little. And, you can increase the AMT for the rich as well. Again, pain everywhere.

[zoony]

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

I'm curious why you never rant and rave about the size of the military budget and Bush's expansion of Federal Powers, deficit spending, and the enormous increase in beurocracy.

actually I know the answer, I'm just wondering what you've told yourself.

[HBnotBlades]

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

Yup, and after adjusting for inflation (35.5% from 1999 to 2011), we have a lower revenue now than we did in 1999.

1999 Spending (2011$): 2.30 T

1999 Revenue (2011$): 2.47 T

2011 Spending (2011$): 3.46 T

2011 Revenue (2011$): 2.16 T

[bird_1972]

One Republican suggestion put forth by Joe Scarborough I agree with is any deleration of war comes with automatic tax increses to pay for said war, this will have people thinking before heading to war.

I'm OK with this.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yup, and after adjusting for inflation (35.5% from 1999 to 2011), we have a lower revenue now than we did in 1999.

You mean we spent the same and had lower revenue.....gee....I can't figure out why the debt increased.....:whoknows:

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 10:24 AM ----------

I'm curious why you never rant and rave about the size of the military budget and Bush's expansion of Federal Powers, deficit spending, and the enormous increase in beurocracy.

actually I know the answer, I'm just wondering what you've told yourself.

Because it is the Government's constitutional mandate to deficit spend on defense and wars.....errr.

[HBnotBlades]

You mean we spent the same and had lower revenue.....gee....I can't figure out why the debt increased.....:whoknows:

Well, spending did increase significantly.

Also, can anyone name any other time in our, or any other nation's, history where they started a war (2x, Iraq and Afghanistan) and made significant steps to reduce revenue (Bush tax cuts) at the same time?

Historically, we've issued war bonds and/or increased taxes in order for everyone to carry the burden and cost of going to war, but in the Bush era we CUT taxes to decrease revenue doubling the burden for future generations. Great idea guys.

[Jumbo]

I'm curious why you never rant and rave about the size of the military budget and Bush's expansion of Federal Powers, deficit spending, and the enormous increase in beurocracy.

actually I know the answer, I'm just wondering what you've told yourself.

Sometimes, thinking only of the best interests of a quality forum :halo:, I picture taking one lefty whacko-lite like DrSmith and one righty whacko-lite like December90 and duct taping them together and then tossing them overboard. Is that mean?

:pfft: Just playin' around boyz.

:no:

:yes:

:no:

:yes:

:no:

[Burgold]

Hmm... on that line of thought if you bound December90 and Dr. Smith together and heaved them off a bridge attached to a bungee cord... would they list to the right or the left?

[DRSmith]

Just short sighted as I am not left or right leaning

[Jumbo]

Just short sighted as I am not left or right leaning

A relief to both sides, I'm sure.

[The 12th Commandment]

My naive self wonders that if rich people made a lot of money during the good times, why wouldn't they want to help their country during bad times? Not very patriotic it would seem. That or greedy. I'm solidly middle class and dropping and I wouldn't mind one bit paying a couple hundred more a year during these hard times. That would be peanuts to these rich folks and if 100 million paid a couple hundred (or, gasp, a similar percentage of their income to me) it would make a HUGE dent in the debt.

[Burgold]

Just short sighted as I am not left or right leaning

It's all good natured teasing. You must admit though in your on-board persona you come out on the left far more often than for the right. Mind you, I do too, but that's because some on the right here can be just so absurd sometimes. Maybe that's true for you as well.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 10:42 AM ----------

My naive self wonders that if rich people made a lot of money during the good times, why wouldn't they want to help their country during bad times? Not very patriotic it would seem. That or greedy. I'm solidly middle class and dropping and I wouldn't mind one bit paying a couple hundred more a year during these hard times. That would be peanuts to these rich folks and if 100 million paid a couple hundred (or, gasp, a similar percentage of their income to me) it would make a HUGE dent in the debt.

Noblese Oblige is a communist thought, my friend. Duty to country that's a stinkin' liberal notion like freedom of speech.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well, spending did increase significantly.

For sure, and it was spending in every area.

Also, can anyone name any other time in our, or any other nation's, history where they started a war (2x, Iraq and Afghanistan) and made significant steps to reduce revenue (Bush tax cuts) at the same time?

Historically, we've issued war bonds and/or increased taxes in order for everyone to carry the burden and cost of going to war, but in the Bush era we CUT taxes to decrease revenue doubling the burden for future generations. Great idea guys.

There hasn't been, but now taxes are evil so they must be reduced...all the while our soldiers are on the field of battle where our government placed them and now we're staring at a default of our loans which will cut off funding for the troops that have been sent into war.

[DRSmith]

My naive self wonders that if rich people made a lot of money during the good times, why wouldn't they want to help their country during bad times? Not very patriotic it would seem. That or greedy. I'm solidly middle class and dropping and I wouldn't mind one bit paying a couple hundred more a year during these hard times. That would be peanuts to these rich folks and if 100 million paid a couple hundred (or, gasp, a similar percentage of their income to me) it would make a HUGE dent in the debt.

One of the interesting things to see happen not too far from me was in the city of Toronto where a right wing mayor was elected and went out and got consultants to hold hearings and invited people to come hoping that he would be vindicated in cutting services in the name of lower taxes.

The results were people were okay with paying a little more taxes to keep the city services

[The 12th Commandment]

It's all good natured teasing. You must admit though in your on-board persona you come out on the left far more often than for the right. Mind you, I do too, but that's because some on the right here can be just so absurd sometimes. Maybe that's true for you as well.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 10:42 AM ----------

Noblese Oblige is a communist thought, my friend. Duty to country that's a stinkin' liberal notion like freedom of speech.

Even in the interest of greed, though, wouldn't it serve their purpose to ensure that the money train doesn't roll to a stop?

[Burgold]

Even in the interest of greed, though, wouldn't it serve their purpose to ensure that the money train doesn't roll to a stop?

Being somewhat serious, this country sucks at prevention. We don't play chess anymore. We play point and shoot video games. Anything that isn't immediately apparent or have immediate payback is disregarded and thought bad. Everything is done with the short term, immediate benefit in mind. Mind you, I'm sometimes guilty of this too. In the stocks I own or am researching I want a company that is ever growing their profits and revenue by gads and if those numbers stumble they become vehicles I might sell or stay away from. In this way, corps are forced to always grow their companies profits even at the expense of their business or community.

[DRSmith]

It's all good natured teasing. You must admit though in your on-board persona you come out on the left far more often than for the right. Mind you, I do too, but that's because some on the right here can be just so absurd sometimes. Maybe that's true for you as well.

I have become annoyed over the years with the rights self righteous attitude and demonization of those whom they oppose.

When I was younger I bought into their self espoused values of being ahrd working honest and not blaming others for their woes but the more I looked at what they practiced it was the opposite.

That said I find it disturbing when both sides pick and choose out the bible what they want to bring into public life, if you think principles regarding morality are good then so are those regarding the love of money and helping the poor and the same is true when reversed.

[Jumbo]

It's all good natured teasing. You must admit though in your on-board persona you come out on the left far more often than for the right. Mind you, I do too, but that's because some on the right here can be just so absurd sometimes. Maybe that's true for you as well.

Oh jeebus, that's just the typical "laughable denial" or "am not, you poo-poo head" commonplace in venues like the tailgate---same as when some resident rabid right-winger claims a more centered point on the political spectrum. We have seen a number of 'em on either wing of the political dodo bird pull that one.

On ES, you live by your posts and your hoisted by your own posted petards (to mix it up a bit). :pfft: