Balance Budget amendment

[jreeves]

Regardless of your political persuation don't agree that over 9 trillion dollars in debt is absurd? I think both republicans and democrats should have to balance the budget, don't you agree.

federalbudget.com

 

[Mr.Conley]

Regardless of your political persuation don't agree that over 9 trillion dollars in debt is absurd? I think both republicans and democrats should have to balance the budget, don't you agree.

federalbudget.com

I totally and utterly disagree.

 

[indago]

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

Section 7 of Public Law 95-435, being 31 USC 27, enacted 10 October 1978, declares: "Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts."



-

 

[Toro]

No, its a bad idea.

There is a time for deficit spending, particularly when the economy is going into a recession - like now for instance.

However, the inability to balance the budget during good times is a failure of public will. It speaks to the immaturity of the American voting public.

 

[Paulie]

No, its a bad idea.

There is a time for deficit spending, particularly when the economy is going into a recession - like now for instance.

However, the inability to balance the budget during good times is a failure of public will. It speaks to the immaturity of the American voting public.

Toro, you know I respect your financial opinions, but can't you agree that our deficit spending has contributed to the recession? Our irresponsible printing and spending has weakened the dollar, which has caused higher inflation as even YOU will admit, and that has caused prices of everything to go up, which has taken more of people's money and given them LESS in the end.

It's not just the housing market, and the housing market problems are not just mortgage issues caused by greedy, irresponsible lenders. The middle class's purchasing power has dropped close to 50% over the last 10 or so years. When you have to spend more to feed, clothe, and fuel yourself, you generally end up having less to give to your mortgage. It's all inter-related.

We as a country have weakened the dollar by being irresponsible. It's the government's fault, and it's also OURS. We're both equally stupid when it comes to money.

So why continue to print and spend MORE?

 

[jillian]

Regardless of your political persuation don't agree that over 9 trillion dollars in debt is absurd? I think both republicans and democrats should have to balance the budget, don't you agree.

federalbudget.com

Someone should have told that to Bush and his boys from 2000-2006. Now, after he ran us into the gutter, you're worrying about it?

That said, yes, the budget should be balanced. We should stop paying for a useless war that we don't have the money to cover.

Thanks for your support.

 

[jillian]

No, its a bad idea.

There is a time for deficit spending, particularly when the economy is going into a recession - like now for instance.

However, the inability to balance the budget during good times is a failure of public will. It speaks to the immaturity of the American voting public.

No it doesn't. It speaks to the incompetence of our representatives in that regard. We don't exactly get a lot of say over it. If I did, I know we wouldn't have ever gone into Iraq and raped our treasury in doing that.

But no one listened to me.

 

[Paulie]

That said, yes, the budget should be balanced. We should stop paying for a useless war that we don't have the money to cover.

Jill, if we can't afford THIS war, then we can't afford any others, either.

We spend a Trillion dollars a year on defense around the world, and we spend another trillion or more on entitlements. Probably another trillion or so on our enormous bureacracy.

Shouldn't we make cuts on ALL that?

Surely you don't support a nanny-state, where people feel less empowered to provide for themselves because they know the government will swoop in and provide just as much for them, if not MORE, as they could make by actually WORKING?

 

[pegwinn]

I understand that from time to time most responsible folks go into debt. Big ticket stuff like houses, automobiles, and the like tend to be out of reach for normal folks. The difference is that responsible folks build payments into thier household budget to pay down the debt.

Our .gov has never qualified as "responsible" in the fiscal sense. Even the mighty Clinton who allegedly balanced the budget, did not have any provisions to pay down the debt.

We already have a federal law that says we will have a balanced budget. How would a Constitutional Amendment help? What would be the difference?

I'm not against it, but I think that before I climb on board away from a neutral position there needs to be some more discussion.

And, Paultics is correct. The average American is stupid politically speaking. The average Voter is only marginally better.

 

[jillian]

Jill, if we can't afford THIS war, then we can't afford any others, either.

We spend a Trillion dollars a year on defense around the world, and we spend another trillion or more on entitlements. Probably another trillion or so on our enormous bureacracy.

Shouldn't we make cuts on ALL that?

Surely you don't support a nanny-state, where people feel less empowered to provide for themselves because they know the government will swoop in and provide just as much for them, if not MORE, as they could make by actually WORKING?

I reject the whole "nanny-state" rhetoric as a way for government-haters to destroy programs that help other than the wealthiest/most powerful and support an agenda of tax cuts for the rich and advance corporate welfare.

In other words, I see that rhetoric as a way to destroy every societal advance since the New Deal, by the progeny of the same people who hated the New Deal and Roosevelt.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Paulie]

I reject the whole "nanny-state" rhetoric as a way for government-haters to destroy programs that help other than the wealthiest/most powerful and support an agenda of tax cuts for the rich and advance corporate welfare.

In other words, I see that rhetoric as a way to destroy every societal advance since the New Deal, by the progeny of the same people who hated the New Deal and Roosevelt.

Does that answer your question?

I'm not wealthy. I still don't agree with financing the lives of people who are perfectly capable of going out and getting a job. In most areas, you can go be a laborer on a construction site and make enough money to provide for yourself. I mean, in all seriousness, my family could probably USE a little free money right now. I was laid off for much of the winter, as my job depends on the housing market to a certain degree, and right now it's very slow down here in south J. I still don't agree with automatic hand-outs. Unemployment however, is fine in my book, because they find you a job, and you have to TAKE it, or else your benefits stop.

I guess it's easier to do NOTHING, and collect the same amount from the government for free instead? That's a "societal advance"? How does that help balance budgets, and keep the economy strong? How does that empower people to provide for themselves and contribute to society?

You know, in NJ, many counties have closed Section 8. There isn't even a waiting list. We're so buried in debt and deficit, that Corzine wants to increase tolls by 800%. That would mean that all the little 50 cent X-way tolls would all be $4, and the 70 cent P-way tolls would be $5.60. That would pretty much CRUSH the middle class in this state, as many people and businesses use those highways everyday, some ALL day, for necessary travel. And you and I both know how friggin many of those toll locations there are in this state.

So that means that you and me have to pay dearly for the irresponsibility of our state legislature. This is just a guess, but I'd venture to say that NJ probably has one of the highest welfare rates in the country.

 

[pegwinn]

I reject the whole "nanny-state" rhetoric as a way for government-haters to destroy programs that help other than the wealthiest/most powerful and support an agenda of tax cuts for the rich and advance corporate welfare. I reject the whole ideology that says "don't worry, do as you please, and we will let the productive members of society take care of you". The problem with the programs of the all powerful benevolent .gov is that there is no limit. Handouts create dependency and crush innovation, initiative, and any vestige of a sovereign citizen to live his or her life as they please.

In other words, I see that rhetoric as a way to destroy every societal advance since the New Deal, by the progeny of the same people who hated the New Deal and Roosevelt. What advances? If you wish to give all your money and talent over to others who won't work then by all means go for it. Me, I will give to selected local charities that I trust will not squander it.

Does that answer your question?

IF we don't get a handle on our money as a nation, the truly needy will eventually get nothing.

 

[jreeves]

No it doesn't. It speaks to the incompetence of our representatives in that regard. We don't exactly get a lot of say over it. If I did, I know we wouldn't have ever gone into Iraq and raped our treasury in doing that.

But no one listened to me.

We can debate what to spend money on later, but don't you think we should balance the national budget?

 

[jreeves]

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

Section 7 of Public Law 95-435, being 31 USC 27, enacted 10 October 1978, declares: "Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts."



-

Are there any penalties in this law, don't you think that the federal government should be required to balance the budget before they pass an annual budget?

 

[jreeves]

Are there any penalties in this law, don't you think that the federal government should be required to balance the budget before they pass an annual budget?

The problem with spending and spending is that each year the interest on the debt goes up and up. For instance, in 2007 the interest on the national debt was third largest expenditure by the federal government. Each year we don't have a balanced budget that expenditure increases. Eventually if not held in check, our country will be consumed by it. If you support a balanced budget write your congressional representatives and tell them you support a balanced budget amendment.

Thank you

 

[jreeves]

Someone should have told that to Bush and his boys from 2000-2006. Now, after he ran us into the gutter, you're worrying about it?

That said, yes, the budget should be balanced. We should stop paying for a useless war that we don't have the money to cover.

Thanks for your support.

I'm not placing blame on anyone, it has to stop though. I don't agree with running up the debt no matter if they are Republican or Democrat.

 

[jreeves]

Jill, if we can't afford THIS war, then we can't afford any others, either.

We spend a Trillion dollars a year on defense around the world, and we spend another trillion or more on entitlements. Probably another trillion or so on our enormous bureacracy.

Shouldn't we make cuts on ALL that?

Surely you don't support a nanny-state, where people feel less empowered to provide for themselves because they know the government will swoop in and provide just as much for them, if not MORE, as they could make by actually WORKING?

The top three expenditures by the federal government were, 1. Dept. of Health and Human Services 680 Billion dollars, 2. Dept. of Defense 580 Billion dollars, 3. Interest on the National Debt 480 Billion dollars.... If we paid the 9.3 trillion dollars off there would be more money in the pie to the tune of 480 billion dollars.

 

[Toro]

No it doesn't. It speaks to the incompetence of our representatives in that regard. We don't exactly get a lot of say over it. If I did, I know we wouldn't have ever gone into Iraq and raped our treasury in doing that.

But no one listened to me.

I have to disagree.

If Americans were serious about balancing the budget, they wouldn't scream every time their programs cut or, more loudly, their taxes were raised.

I saw this in Canada where taxes were raised and programs were cut to balance the budget and start paying down debt. Now, Canadians want no part of their government borrowing more than it spends, though the country isn't in a recession yet. There is no such will in America.

 

[jillian]

I have to disagree.

If Americans were serious about balancing the budget, they wouldn't scream every time their programs cut or, more loudly, their taxes were raised.

I saw this in Canada where taxes were raised and programs were cut to balance the budget and start paying down debt. Now, Canadians want no part of their government borrowing more than it spends, though the country isn't in a recession yet. There is no such will in America.

Maybe they want to cut the wrong things. So it's not about us, it's about the refusal of our officials to listen to our priorities.

 

[pegwinn]

Maybe they want to cut the wrong things. So it's not about us, it's about the refusal of our officials to listen to our priorities.

Line Item Veto.

Or, barring that, a unilateral cut of equal percentages across the board. This could be adjusted quarterly if needed.

Either would do the job. The first option squarely places the POTUS in the hot seat. The second may be more fair but it places the crosshairs on the Congress.