Balanced Budget Amendment

[code1211]

In Indiana, we have a surplus. This is the result of some very creative thinking and a good and dedicated effort by the government and the people of Indiana who pretty much got together and decided to stop the insanity.

It's time to get this done in the USA.

I have always enjoyed political discourse and I always vote. I have never actively campaigned for anything, but I would campaign for this.

It's time to balance the budget and take the purse strings out of the hands of the lying, cheating thieves that have bankrupted the country.

Does anyone have an argument to not balance the budget? Break the economy and give our decendants the bleak and gloomy dark age of debtors' servitude is the plan being executed by the Big 0.

I guess I'd like to know the logic that supports this stupidity.

 

[Wiseacre]

I'm not a lefty, but I do have an argument against the BBA. It's all good when the economy is fine and everybody has a job if they want one. But in recessions and depressions the drop in revenue could be too steep, the gov't could be hamstrung from doing essential things. Like now with the debt ceiling, if we don't raise the debt ceiling then we've gotta cut some 44% off the federal budget. That's a lot of cuts, and a lot of federal jobs, do we need to do that when the economy is as shaky as it is? I haven't seen a plan anywhere that shows how we can cut that severly without a serious impact on federal programs that must be done. Plus, what happens if later inthe year we have another catastrophe, a weather related event or an oil spill or a terrorist attack that is successful. What're we going to do if the Treasury doesn't have the money to help people that need it?

The truth is, the BBA is a requirement to force the gov't to live within it's means. But we should be doing that ourselves, we should be asking questions and demanding answers for how our money is being spent, and we ain't doing it. If they aren't being good stewards of our money then we oughta be kicking their sorry asses out of office. The truth is, they ain't the problem, we are. And the BBA is not going to fix that problem.

 

[code1211]

I'm not a lefty, but I do have an argument against the BBA. It's all good when the economy is fine and everybody has a job if they want one. But in recessions and depressions the drop in revenue could be too steep, the gov't could be hamstrung from doing essential things. Like now with the debt ceiling, if we don't raise the debt ceiling then we've gotta cut some 44% off the federal budget. That's a lot of cuts, and a lot of federal jobs, do we need to do that when the economy is as shaky as it is? I haven't seen a plan anywhere that shows how we can cut that severly without a serious impact on federal programs that must be done. Plus, what happens if later inthe year we have another catastrophe, a weather related event or an oil spill or a terrorist attack that is successful. What're we going to do if the Treasury doesn't have the money to help people that need it?

The truth is, the BBA is a requirement to force the gov't to live within it's means. But we should be doing that ourselves, we should be asking questions and demanding answers for how our money is being spent, and we ain't doing it. If they aren't being good stewards of our money then we oughta be kicking their sorry asses out of office. The truth is, they ain't the problem, we are. And the BBA is not going to fix that problem.

The BBA IS essential. Right now, we are short of our expenditures by about 40%.

Ironically, we are collecting just about exactly the amount of cash that we spent in the year 2000. A good fist move might be to just draw everthing back to the year 2000 levels.

The simple fact is that we are OUT OF MONEY.

We all seem to look at every fairy tale need that anyone ever concieved and then say, "Well, we just gotta spend the money." The question we need to ask is, "How can we accomplish our goals witho8ut exceeding our budget?" You know. Like real life.

Whether you like the approach of teh Big 0 in which you just spend it all until it completely gone or the approach of the ryan Budget in which you adjust things to fit the income, there are going to be changes.

The only question is whether we want to define and control the changes or have the Chinese define and control them for us.

Ask Greeks how they are enjoying the Big 0 approach.


Federal Spending Trends and Federal Budget Trends | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm not a lefty, but I do have an argument against the BBA. It's all good when the economy is fine and everybody has a job if they want one. But in recessions and depressions the drop in revenue could be too steep, the gov't could be hamstrung from doing essential things. Like now with the debt ceiling, if we don't raise the debt ceiling then we've gotta cut some 44% off the federal budget. That's a lot of cuts, and a lot of federal jobs, do we need to do that when the economy is as shaky as it is? I haven't seen a plan anywhere that shows how we can cut that severly without a serious impact on federal programs that must be done. Plus, what happens if later inthe year we have another catastrophe, a weather related event or an oil spill or a terrorist attack that is successful. What're we going to do if the Treasury doesn't have the money to help people that need it?

The truth is, the BBA is a requirement to force the gov't to live within it's means. But we should be doing that ourselves, we should be asking questions and demanding answers for how our money is being spent, and we ain't doing it. If they aren't being good stewards of our money then we oughta be kicking their sorry asses out of office. The truth is, they ain't the problem, we are. And the BBA is not going to fix that problem.

I would imagine any legitimate BBA would have a clause inserted allowing the Congress to override it in the case of an emergency by a super majority vote or something to that affect.

 

[Anachronism]

It really depends on how the Amendment is written.

Personally, I'd like to see one that requires the budget to equal no more than 90% of the total EXPECTED tax income from the fiscal year. That extra 10% would be put away in an account that cannot be touched except under certain specific economic conditions.

 

[code1211]

Does anyone else recall those quaint shorts sometimes played on AMC showing the Big Name Actors of the 40's trying to sell war bonds? The steel and rubber drives? Rationing?

There was a time in this country when we really tried to pay our own way. Now the shisters and the swindlers have us believing that no matter how much we take, somebody is getting more and we are getting screwed.

My parents were proud to (and taught their children to) earn their own way. What ever happened to that as a belief system?

 

[code1211]

I'm not a lefty, but I do have an argument against the BBA. It's all good when the economy is fine and everybody has a job if they want one. But in recessions and depressions the drop in revenue could be too steep, the gov't could be hamstrung from doing essential things. Like now with the debt ceiling, if we don't raise the debt ceiling then we've gotta cut some 44% off the federal budget. That's a lot of cuts, and a lot of federal jobs, do we need to do that when the economy is as shaky as it is? I haven't seen a plan anywhere that shows how we can cut that severly without a serious impact on federal programs that must be done. Plus, what happens if later inthe year we have another catastrophe, a weather related event or an oil spill or a terrorist attack that is successful. What're we going to do if the Treasury doesn't have the money to help people that need it?

The truth is, the BBA is a requirement to force the gov't to live within it's means. But we should be doing that ourselves, we should be asking questions and demanding answers for how our money is being spent, and we ain't doing it. If they aren't being good stewards of our money then we oughta be kicking their sorry asses out of office. The truth is, they ain't the problem, we are. And the BBA is not going to fix that problem.

I would imagine any legitimate BBA would have a clause inserted allowing the Congress to override it in the case of an emergency by a super majority vote or something to that affect.

An emergency as defined by our current politicians is the possiblity that they may not get re-elected.