Balance Budget amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jreeves, Feb 15, 2008.

  1. jreeves
    Offline

    jreeves Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    6,588
    Thanks Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +315
    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
     
  2. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    I totally and utterly disagree.
     
  3. indago
    Offline

    indago VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +180
    BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

    [​IMG]

    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."



    -
     
  4. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,771
    Thanks Received:
    11,058
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,106
    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.
     
  5. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,569
    Thanks Received:
    4,854
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,417
    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? :eusa_wall:
     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,433
    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.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,433
    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. ;)
     
  8. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,569
    Thanks Received:
    4,854
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,417
    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?
     
  9. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    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.
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,433
    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?
     

Share This Page