Five Reasons Why A National Balanced Budget Amendment Is Lunacy

[Dovahkiin]

Good faith? A balanced budget amendment is absurd. It's impossible, and absurd, to think that the fed govt. can save in currency in any relevant way. You need to learn that state/local governments are different in relation to the debt, an important point when discussing something as absurd as a "balanced budget" amendment. A "balanced budget" amendment will require a balanced budget even during recessions. I should not have to point out why this is childish. Calling a poster a "fucking idiot leftist hack" while refusing to contribute anything intelligent is telling. Hand out for freebies? Dude, quit the partisan shit. Let's assume for a second we remove all things you view as "leftist entitlements." The damage to the economy would be enormous.

I've already contributed enormously in one the first responses to the OP. I addressed your stupid 5 points one by one. You decided to start talking down to me and you've still not stopped doing it. So stick it where the sun don't shine, buddy. You are not going to sit here and high-brow me with your crackpot Keynesian theory that has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

A balanced budget is certainly NOT stupid. MILLIONS of American families balance their budgets every single month in America and enjoy economic prosperity and freedom because of it. Those who run up debts they cannot pay, face penalties and hardships too numerous to list here. They are not free, they are shackled to their debt snowball and often have to forfeit everything they have in the end. There is no difference in the principles whether it's a family, a city, a state or a federal government. You keep SAYING it is different but you've not shown anything to support that opinion and frankly, the opinion just doesn't even make rational sense.

The OP title purports to tell us why balancing the budget is lunacy... you had your chance but you merely listed 5 things that are simply excuses for not balancing the budget. That doesn't tell me why it's absurd or stupid to balance the budget, it just tells me you're real good at making up excuses. We can always make up excuses not to do something that is hard to do. That isn't a reason nor is it a justification not to do it. We CAN have a balanced budget and with a Constitutional amendment we'll HAVE to have one. There won't be any more excuses.

Now..... Every proposal that I have heard on a serious BBA, takes into consideration the various assorted things that could potentially happen... wars, catastrophes, disasters, etc. Congress will retain the ability to run a deficit in certain cases if they achieve the necessary super majority to do so. But... this will NOT be a recurring thing and it WILL be tied to the GDP. There will be limits on overspending.

As for the economy, it will skyrocket under this proposal because people will have more of their own money to spend instead of paying it out the ass in new taxation. The billions and trillions we would be paying to service the debt will be going back into the economy. The out-of-control public spending on everything under the sun would return to the private sector where free market solutions would fill the void and begin to generate new jobs and more economic prosperity. In the public sector, we would see more intense focus on making every dollar count, so we would eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse...we'd have no other choice.

Keynesian theory has empirically reduced the length of recessions and increased economic growth since its introduction. I'll address the rest of your post later, along with iamawhosure, since both of you are making silly assumptions.

 

[Indeependent]

Debt is meaningless when a nation does not have a trade deficit.

 

[imawhosure]

Good faith? A balanced budget amendment is absurd. It's impossible, and absurd, to think that the fed govt. can save in currency in any relevant way. You need to learn that state/local governments are different in relation to the debt, an important point when discussing something as absurd as a "balanced budget" amendment. A "balanced budget" amendment will require a balanced budget even during recessions. I should not have to point out why this is childish. Calling a poster a "fucking idiot leftist hack" while refusing to contribute anything intelligent is telling. Hand out for freebies? Dude, quit the partisan shit. Let's assume for a second we remove all things you view as "leftist entitlements." The damage to the economy would be enormous.

I've already contributed enormously in one the first responses to the OP. I addressed your stupid 5 points one by one. You decided to start talking down to me and you've still not stopped doing it. So stick it where the sun don't shine, buddy. You are not going to sit here and high-brow me with your crackpot Keynesian theory that has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

A balanced budget is certainly NOT stupid. MILLIONS of American families balance their budgets every single month in America and enjoy economic prosperity and freedom because of it. Those who run up debts they cannot pay, face penalties and hardships too numerous to list here. They are not free, they are shackled to their debt snowball and often have to forfeit everything they have in the end. There is no difference in the principles whether it's a family, a city, a state or a federal government. You keep SAYING it is different but you've not shown anything to support that opinion and frankly, the opinion just doesn't even make rational sense.

The OP title purports to tell us why balancing the budget is lunacy... you had your chance but you merely listed 5 things that are simply excuses for not balancing the budget. That doesn't tell me why it's absurd or stupid to balance the budget, it just tells me you're real good at making up excuses. We can always make up excuses not to do something that is hard to do. That isn't a reason nor is it a justification not to do it. We CAN have a balanced budget and with a Constitutional amendment we'll HAVE to have one. There won't be any more excuses.

Now..... Every proposal that I have heard on a serious BBA, takes into consideration the various assorted things that could potentially happen... wars, catastrophes, disasters, etc. Congress will retain the ability to run a deficit in certain cases if they achieve the necessary super majority to do so. But... this will NOT be a recurring thing and it WILL be tied to the GDP. There will be limits on overspending.

As for the economy, it will skyrocket under this proposal because people will have more of their own money to spend instead of paying it out the ass in new taxation. The billions and trillions we would be paying to service the debt will be going back into the economy. The out-of-control public spending on everything under the sun would return to the private sector where free market solutions would fill the void and begin to generate new jobs and more economic prosperity. In the public sector, we would see more intense focus on making every dollar count, so we would eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse...we'd have no other choice.

Keynesian theory has empirically reduced the length of recessions and increased economic growth since its introduction. I'll address the rest of your post later, along with iamawhosure, since both of you are making silly assumptions.

Still waiting there lefty superstar! All your fans are sitting here with baited breath, hoping you can answer post 77, 78, and 79. You are BRILLIANT, so to not accept the challenge is well.............kinda like admitting you are a pu**Y!

But hey, I understand-)

 

[Rustic]

There is good debt, and there is bad debt.

Believe me, we are submerged in bad debt.

Budgets are not budgets when spending outpaces revenue. Year after year after year....

Fuck off.

No doubt we are fucked...

 

[Mac1958]

There are reasonable arguments for and against any large issue or idea. I'm pro-BBA for the following reasons:

First, it forces both parties to justify their taxing and spending initiatives. If you want to increase spending, you'll most likely have to increase taxes. That means you'll have to convince the electorate. If you want to decrease spending you'll have to justify the corresponding reduction in services. This means you'll have to convince the electorate.

Second, servicing our debt is currently costing us around $250 billion per year. Anyone who doesn't understand what that expenditure does to our economy maybe shouldn't be taking part in this discussion. And that amount of debt service is while the cost of debt is at an all time low. Any guesses as to what happens to our debt service when interest rates increase?

Many partisans don't want a BBA because it would tie the hands of their political leaders. That's exactly why I want it.
.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Good faith? A balanced budget amendment is absurd. It's impossible, and absurd, to think that the fed govt. can save in currency in any relevant way. You need to learn that state/local governments are different in relation to the debt, an important point when discussing something as absurd as a "balanced budget" amendment. A "balanced budget" amendment will require a balanced budget even during recessions. I should not have to point out why this is childish. Calling a poster a "fucking idiot leftist hack" while refusing to contribute anything intelligent is telling. Hand out for freebies? Dude, quit the partisan shit. Let's assume for a second we remove all things you view as "leftist entitlements." The damage to the economy would be enormous.

I've already contributed enormously in one the first responses to the OP. I addressed your stupid 5 points one by one. You decided to start talking down to me and you've still not stopped doing it. So stick it where the sun don't shine, buddy. You are not going to sit here and high-brow me with your crackpot Keynesian theory that has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

A balanced budget is certainly NOT stupid. MILLIONS of American families balance their budgets every single month in America and enjoy economic prosperity and freedom because of it. Those who run up debts they cannot pay, face penalties and hardships too numerous to list here. They are not free, they are shackled to their debt snowball and often have to forfeit everything they have in the end. There is no difference in the principles whether it's a family, a city, a state or a federal government. You keep SAYING it is different but you've not shown anything to support that opinion and frankly, the opinion just doesn't even make rational sense.

The OP title purports to tell us why balancing the budget is lunacy... you had your chance but you merely listed 5 things that are simply excuses for not balancing the budget. That doesn't tell me why it's absurd or stupid to balance the budget, it just tells me you're real good at making up excuses. We can always make up excuses not to do something that is hard to do. That isn't a reason nor is it a justification not to do it. We CAN have a balanced budget and with a Constitutional amendment we'll HAVE to have one. There won't be any more excuses.

Now..... Every proposal that I have heard on a serious BBA, takes into consideration the various assorted things that could potentially happen... wars, catastrophes, disasters, etc. Congress will retain the ability to run a deficit in certain cases if they achieve the necessary super majority to do so. But... this will NOT be a recurring thing and it WILL be tied to the GDP. There will be limits on overspending.

As for the economy, it will skyrocket under this proposal because people will have more of their own money to spend instead of paying it out the ass in new taxation. The billions and trillions we would be paying to service the debt will be going back into the economy. The out-of-control public spending on everything under the sun would return to the private sector where free market solutions would fill the void and begin to generate new jobs and more economic prosperity. In the public sector, we would see more intense focus on making every dollar count, so we would eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse...we'd have no other choice.

Finally done with my things and ready to flesh out a response.
(i will try to explain many common misunderstands in my response while responding to your post..)
You haven't "contributed" enormously, you've simply continue to show your misunderstanding.
Many people, I'm sure yourself included, still believe the US is somehow on the gold standard and base their economic beliefs on this. News flash: The bretton woods system doesn't exist anymore. Government financing and debt is NOT similiar to household financing and debt, which is what you and many others seem to believe. One of the most widespread beliefs held by politicians and many econ students who have yet to actually delve deeper into the modern economy, is that the government needs to tax/borrow to actually spend. This is false. Modern money is, quite simply, simply a spreadsheet. When the government spends or lends, it does so by, literally, adding #'s to private bank accts. When it taxes, those accts are marked down. When the govt ends up borrowing, it's simply shifting funds from a reserve account to securities accounts. Once you understand the above, you should be able to see my perspective, and the perspective of others who refuse to follow absurd beliefs stemming from the gold era. I need to make this clear though: The money spent by the govt, literally, doesn't come from ANYWHERE, and it doesn't cost anything to produce. The govt, literally, cannot run out of money. You do know how money is created in our economy, right? Government spending or bank loans, creating deposits. You know why money has value, right? I'm trying to explain all of this to you so you shake your misunderstanding of the modern economy which has a fiat currency. Money has value because of taxes, after all, we need money to pay taxes, which in turn creates demand for money. One of the most absurd beliefs found today is that the government has to tax to spend, that's not true at all, because before the government spends, there is no money to tax. The government can literally never default on the debt, since we borrow our own currency. This should squash the fear mongering spread by both sides. But the fear mongering never goes away. The debt is a political tool. You do realize paying the debt is literally a matter of adding interest to the accounts of the entities holding bonds? It is true that a government borrowing a currency it doesn't control can default, but we're not like those countries. WE CONTROL OUR CURRENCY. I want to ask how exactly the public debt is a burden on the future? I will not respond to you after this post until you answer that question, although I'm not done yet.
(I should mention a higher public debt does nothing to production, y'know, what really matters. If anything, it increases future productivity)
Let's move onto deficits.
Deficits, quite literally, increase private financial savings. This is empirical, and cannot be refuted. It's a simple matter of accounting.
I follow modern monetary theory, not typical keynesian theory. Get that right first.
Yes, households that run up debts do actually have to find ways to make up what's needed to pay it off, this usually involves shuffling money around or cutting back. The US govt doesn't have to do that, I've made that clear already.
There is a huge difference in household debt and the public debt. It's ignorance and makes you look like a moron to say otherwise.
I've already explained this.
I've already supported my opinion, notice how you never respond with any refutations of my posts apart from ideological rambling? "DEBT IS ALWAYS BAD, OUR KIDS ARE ENSLAVED!" Shut the hell up.
The 5 things listed, among others, help demonstrate why always requiring a balanced budget is lunacy. Imagine the country falls into a recession, do you believe the govt should continue to balance the budget? When we have an 8% UE rate, should the government focus on balancing the budget?

LOL. You talk about people saving money.. Do you know what a fucking surplus does to the economy? A surplus literally causes the private sector to go under, this has been observed with the clinton surpluses. A deficit benefits the private sector, and us, because it means the government is collecting less of our tax dollars. Balancing a budget will inevitably lead to tax increases, you fool.
The "billions and trillions" we pay to service the debt isn't coming from our pockets.
We need a balance of public sector and private sector spending. A surplus, literally, harms the private sector. We had a boom under reagan when he ran deficits and boomed the debt, y'know, more money going into the private sector.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Good faith? A balanced budget amendment is absurd. It's impossible, and absurd, to think that the fed govt. can save in currency in any relevant way. You need to learn that state/local governments are different in relation to the debt, an important point when discussing something as absurd as a "balanced budget" amendment. A "balanced budget" amendment will require a balanced budget even during recessions. I should not have to point out why this is childish. Calling a poster a "fucking idiot leftist hack" while refusing to contribute anything intelligent is telling. Hand out for freebies? Dude, quit the partisan shit. Let's assume for a second we remove all things you view as "leftist entitlements." The damage to the economy would be enormous.

I've already contributed enormously in one the first responses to the OP. I addressed your stupid 5 points one by one. You decided to start talking down to me and you've still not stopped doing it. So stick it where the sun don't shine, buddy. You are not going to sit here and high-brow me with your crackpot Keynesian theory that has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

A balanced budget is certainly NOT stupid. MILLIONS of American families balance their budgets every single month in America and enjoy economic prosperity and freedom because of it. Those who run up debts they cannot pay, face penalties and hardships too numerous to list here. They are not free, they are shackled to their debt snowball and often have to forfeit everything they have in the end. There is no difference in the principles whether it's a family, a city, a state or a federal government. You keep SAYING it is different but you've not shown anything to support that opinion and frankly, the opinion just doesn't even make rational sense.

The OP title purports to tell us why balancing the budget is lunacy... you had your chance but you merely listed 5 things that are simply excuses for not balancing the budget. That doesn't tell me why it's absurd or stupid to balance the budget, it just tells me you're real good at making up excuses. We can always make up excuses not to do something that is hard to do. That isn't a reason nor is it a justification not to do it. We CAN have a balanced budget and with a Constitutional amendment we'll HAVE to have one. There won't be any more excuses.

Now..... Every proposal that I have heard on a serious BBA, takes into consideration the various assorted things that could potentially happen... wars, catastrophes, disasters, etc. Congress will retain the ability to run a deficit in certain cases if they achieve the necessary super majority to do so. But... this will NOT be a recurring thing and it WILL be tied to the GDP. There will be limits on overspending.

As for the economy, it will skyrocket under this proposal because people will have more of their own money to spend instead of paying it out the ass in new taxation. The billions and trillions we would be paying to service the debt will be going back into the economy. The out-of-control public spending on everything under the sun would return to the private sector where free market solutions would fill the void and begin to generate new jobs and more economic prosperity. In the public sector, we would see more intense focus on making every dollar count, so we would eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse...we'd have no other choice.

Know what Boss, I am still waiting for this lefty to address another post added in earlier, maybe if he only will speak to you, you should ask him to explain since he quickly glossed it over.........

If debt means nothing, then why pay any taxes at all? We will just print money, and no American citizen has to pay anything. Why insist on raising taxes on the rich? We don't need to, just print more, right?

I never said debt means nothing. The debate over the debt is entirely misguided though.
Why have taxes?
Taxes create a demand for the dollar.
They can be used to Reduce aggregate demand.

 

[Boss]

Keynesian theory has empirically reduced the length of recessions and increased economic growth since its introduction. I'll address the rest of your post later, along with iamawhosure, since both of you are making silly assumptions.

Tell you what you can do... Find me one example where Keynesian policy has enhanced or created individual liberty. I'n not interested in propaganda statistics designed to promote Keynesian policy. You simply can't say something reduced the length of a recession because you don't know what results you would have had otherwise. It is pure speculation. It also doesn't increase economic growth to run up more debt. It might seem to do this in the short term but it's like flushing money down the toilet... eventually, you can flush enough to stop the toilet up... doesn't mean that's the best way to stop it up.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Keynesian theory has empirically reduced the length of recessions and increased economic growth since its introduction. I'll address the rest of your post later, along with iamawhosure, since both of you are making silly assumptions.

Tell you what you can do... Find me one example where Keynesian policy has enhanced or created individual liberty. I'n not interested in propaganda statistics designed to promote Keynesian policy. You simply can't say something reduced the length of a recession because you don't know what results you would have had otherwise. It is pure speculation. It also doesn't increase economic growth to run up more debt. It might seem to do this in the short term but it's like flushing money down the toilet... eventually, you can flush enough to stop the toilet up... doesn't mean that's the best way to stop it up.

How are you defining "individual liberty?"
Keynes advocated for government expenditures and lower taxes you know..
Dude, there is a direct connection.
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: The US Recession of 1920–1921: Some Austrian Myths

The average duration of US recessions in the post-1945 era of classic Keynesian demand management (1945–1980) and the neoliberal era (1980–2010) has been about 11 months (see Carbaugh 2010: 248 and the data in Knoop 2010: 13; curiously, there has only been one post-1945 US recession that lasted 18 months: the Great Recession of December 2007–June 2009, which was much worse than the 1920–1921 downturn). The average duration of recessions in peacetime from 1854 to 1919 was 22 months (Knoop 2010: 13), and the average duration of recessions from 1919 to 1945 was 18 months (Knoop 2010: 13).

In the post 1945 period this was cut to about 11 months. Thus the average duration of recessions was essentially cut in half after 1945, because of countercyclical fiscal and monetary policy. Even expansions in the post-1945 business cycle became longer: the average duration of post-1945 expansions was 50 months. By contrast, the average duration of expansions from 1854 to 1919 was 27 months, and the average from 1919 to 1945 was 35 months (Knoop 2010: 13). In other words, the average length of post-1945 expansions became 43% higher compared with that of 1919 to 1945, and 85% higher than between 1854 to 1919.

Macroeconomic performance after 1945 has been superior, without any doubt, to that of the previous gold standard eras. The recession of 1920–1921 with a duration of 18 months was in fact of long duration relative to the average of post-1945 recessions. Keynesian and even neoliberal economic management of the business cycle has been superior to the system that existed before 1933.

The empirical data tells us that, if Keynesian stimulus had been applied early in 1920, there are convincing reasons for thinking that the contraction would have been far shorter than 18 months.

It does indeed increase economic growth when you run a deficit.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Know what Boss, I am still waiting for this lefty to address another post added in earlier, maybe if he only will speak to you, you should ask him to explain since he quickly glossed it over.........

If debt means nothing, then why pay any taxes at all? We will just print money, and no American citizen has to pay anything. Why insist on raising taxes on the rich? We don't need to, just print more, right?

Absolutely! We should just abolish all taxation... the more government spends the more we make... so that would be great for the economy... none of us having to pay 35-40% of our paycheck in taxes anymore... think of all that extra money pouring into the economy!

This is a perfect representation of your childish understanding of what I've been saying.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Know what Boss, I am still waiting for this lefty to address another post added in earlier, maybe if he only will speak to you, you should ask him to explain since he quickly glossed it over.........

If debt means nothing, then why pay any taxes at all? We will just print money, and no American citizen has to pay anything. Why insist on raising taxes on the rich? We don't need to, just print more, right?

Absolutely! We should just abolish all taxation... the more government spends the more we make... so that would be great for the economy... none of us having to pay 35-40% of our paycheck in taxes anymore... think of all that extra money pouring into the economy!

Correct, and it would work perfectly if his main point is accurate------> 1. We have total control of our money, and 2. Debt doesn't matter.

What he is admiting by extrapolation, is that higher rates on SOME people are no more than punishment, because we actually do not need any money as the government can just create it.

And so now it is HIS turn to explain that if his theory is accurate, while all the nice lefty politicians have a tax on the middle class at all, and why he wants to RAISE taxes on anyone, for any reason.

We are waiting their Mr Lefty for your pearls of wisdom-) And be careful what you say, lolol. You either blow your own OP out of the water, or make the Democrats look like Attilla The Hun. In either case, it should be entertaining to watch you try and spin-)

My main point is accurate. We have control of our money. We are not like Greece.
I am against raising taxes, unless people begin to move towards another currency. Taxes help drive demand for the currency of our nation.
Taxes can also reduce aggregate demand.

 

[Indeependent]

Individual Liberty is the ability to call in the Federal & State Militias to break the legs of your employees.
At least that's what it was before FDR.

 

[Boss]

Good faith? A balanced budget amendment is absurd. It's impossible, and absurd, to think that the fed govt. can save in currency in any relevant way. You need to learn that state/local governments are different in relation to the debt, an important point when discussing something as absurd as a "balanced budget" amendment. A "balanced budget" amendment will require a balanced budget even during recessions. I should not have to point out why this is childish. Calling a poster a "fucking idiot leftist hack" while refusing to contribute anything intelligent is telling. Hand out for freebies? Dude, quit the partisan shit. Let's assume for a second we remove all things you view as "leftist entitlements." The damage to the economy would be enormous.

I've already contributed enormously in one the first responses to the OP. I addressed your stupid 5 points one by one. You decided to start talking down to me and you've still not stopped doing it. So stick it where the sun don't shine, buddy. You are not going to sit here and high-brow me with your crackpot Keynesian theory that has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

A balanced budget is certainly NOT stupid. MILLIONS of American families balance their budgets every single month in America and enjoy economic prosperity and freedom because of it. Those who run up debts they cannot pay, face penalties and hardships too numerous to list here. They are not free, they are shackled to their debt snowball and often have to forfeit everything they have in the end. There is no difference in the principles whether it's a family, a city, a state or a federal government. You keep SAYING it is different but you've not shown anything to support that opinion and frankly, the opinion just doesn't even make rational sense.

The OP title purports to tell us why balancing the budget is lunacy... you had your chance but you merely listed 5 things that are simply excuses for not balancing the budget. That doesn't tell me why it's absurd or stupid to balance the budget, it just tells me you're real good at making up excuses. We can always make up excuses not to do something that is hard to do. That isn't a reason nor is it a justification not to do it. We CAN have a balanced budget and with a Constitutional amendment we'll HAVE to have one. There won't be any more excuses.

Now..... Every proposal that I have heard on a serious BBA, takes into consideration the various assorted things that could potentially happen... wars, catastrophes, disasters, etc. Congress will retain the ability to run a deficit in certain cases if they achieve the necessary super majority to do so. But... this will NOT be a recurring thing and it WILL be tied to the GDP. There will be limits on overspending.

As for the economy, it will skyrocket under this proposal because people will have more of their own money to spend instead of paying it out the ass in new taxation. The billions and trillions we would be paying to service the debt will be going back into the economy. The out-of-control public spending on everything under the sun would return to the private sector where free market solutions would fill the void and begin to generate new jobs and more economic prosperity. In the public sector, we would see more intense focus on making every dollar count, so we would eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse...we'd have no other choice.

Finally done with my things and ready to flesh out a response.
(i will try to explain many common misunderstands in my response while responding to your post..)
You haven't "contributed" enormously, you've simply continue to show your misunderstanding.
Many people, I'm sure yourself included, still believe the US is somehow on the gold standard and base their economic beliefs on this. News flash: The bretton woods system doesn't exist anymore. Government financing and debt is NOT similiar to household financing and debt, which is what you and many others seem to believe. One of the most widespread beliefs held by politicians and many econ students who have yet to actually delve deeper into the modern economy, is that the government needs to tax/borrow to actually spend. This is false. Modern money is, quite simply, simply a spreadsheet. When the government spends or lends, it does so by, literally, adding #'s to private bank accts. When it taxes, those accts are marked down. When the govt ends up borrowing, it's simply shifting funds from a reserve account to securities accounts. Once you understand the above, you should be able to see my perspective, and the perspective of others who refuse to follow absurd beliefs stemming from the gold era. I need to make this clear though: The money spent by the govt, literally, doesn't come from ANYWHERE, and it doesn't cost anything to produce. The govt, literally, cannot run out of money. You do know how money is created in our economy, right? Government spending or bank loans, creating deposits. You know why money has value, right? I'm trying to explain all of this to you so you shake your misunderstanding of the modern economy which has a fiat currency. Money has value because of taxes, after all, we need money to pay taxes, which in turn creates demand for money. One of the most absurd beliefs found today is that the government has to tax to spend, that's not true at all, because before the government spends, there is no money to tax. The government can literally never default on the debt, since we borrow our own currency. This should squash the fear mongering spread by both sides. But the fear mongering never goes away. The debt is a political tool. You do realize paying the debt is literally a matter of adding interest to the accounts of the entities holding bonds? It is true that a government borrowing a currency it doesn't control can default, but we're not like those countries. WE CONTROL OUR CURRENCY. I want to ask how exactly the public debt is a burden on the future? I will not respond to you after this post until you answer that question, although I'm not done yet.
(I should mention a higher public debt does nothing to production, y'know, what really matters. If anything, it increases future productivity)
Let's move onto deficits.
Deficits, quite literally, increase private financial savings. This is empirical, and cannot be refuted. It's a simple matter of accounting.
I follow modern monetary theory, not typical keynesian theory. Get that right first.
Yes, households that run up debts do actually have to find ways to make up what's needed to pay it off, this usually involves shuffling money around or cutting back. The US govt doesn't have to do that, I've made that clear already.
There is a huge difference in household debt and the public debt. It's ignorance and makes you look like a moron to say otherwise.
I've already explained this.
I've already supported my opinion, notice how you never respond with any refutations of my posts apart from ideological rambling? "DEBT IS ALWAYS BAD, OUR KIDS ARE ENSLAVED!" Shut the hell up.
The 5 things listed, among others, help demonstrate why always requiring a balanced budget is lunacy. Imagine the country falls into a recession, do you believe the govt should continue to balance the budget? When we have an 8% UE rate, should the government focus on balancing the budget?

LOL. You talk about people saving money.. Do you know what a fucking surplus does to the economy? A surplus literally causes the private sector to go under, this has been observed with the clinton surpluses. A deficit benefits the private sector, and us, because it means the government is collecting less of our tax dollars. Balancing a budget will inevitably lead to tax increases, you fool.
The "billions and trillions" we pay to service the debt isn't coming from our pockets.
We need a balance of public sector and private sector spending. A surplus, literally, harms the private sector. We had a boom under reagan when he ran deficits and boomed the debt, y'know, more money going into the private sector.

You need to learn how to write with paragraphs. I started reading this convoluted nonsense and found my eyes glazing over about a third of third of the way through... it's nothing but a shell game you're playing with economic terms.

As for a surplus, we've never had one, at lest on in OUR time. The mythical Clinton surplus was non-existent. It was predicated on a 10-year projection based on dot-com performance and the dot-com bubble burst so the realization of that projection never happened. Clinton balancing the budget was also a gimmick due to the fact they started counting the Social Security trust fund as part of the general budget.

Finally... the billion and trillions we're paying to service the debt IS coming from our pockets because there is no Magic Money Fairy. The government doesn't produce or create anything. Every dime comes from us or it has to be borrowed or printed.

I'm going to post Dr. Williams again, discussing Keynesian policy, I encourage you to pay attention this time and not ignore it like you did before.

 

[imawhosure]

Know what Boss, I am still waiting for this lefty to address another post added in earlier, maybe if he only will speak to you, you should ask him to explain since he quickly glossed it over.........

If debt means nothing, then why pay any taxes at all? We will just print money, and no American citizen has to pay anything. Why insist on raising taxes on the rich? We don't need to, just print more, right?

Absolutely! We should just abolish all taxation... the more government spends the more we make... so that would be great for the economy... none of us having to pay 35-40% of our paycheck in taxes anymore... think of all that extra money pouring into the economy!

Correct, and it would work perfectly if his main point is accurate------> 1. We have total control of our money, and 2. Debt doesn't matter.

What he is admiting by extrapolation, is that higher rates on SOME people are no more than punishment, because we actually do not need any money as the government can just create it.

And so now it is HIS turn to explain that if his theory is accurate, while all the nice lefty politicians have a tax on the middle class at all, and why he wants to RAISE taxes on anyone, for any reason.

We are waiting their Mr Lefty for your pearls of wisdom-) And be careful what you say, lolol. You either blow your own OP out of the water, or make the Democrats look like Attilla The Hun. In either case, it should be entertaining to watch you try and spin-)

My main point is accurate. We have control of our money. We are not like Greece.
I am against raising taxes, unless people begin to move towards another currency. Taxes help drive demand for the currency of our nation.
Taxes can also reduce aggregate demand.

So then, by your short summation, are we to assume that since................taxes drive the currency..........the more debt that is accumulated, the more tax revenue is needed to drive the currency at the same rate that would be enjoyed, if the debt was less? REREAD what I asked before you answer please-)

 

[Dovahkiin]

Know what Boss, I am still waiting for this lefty to address another post added in earlier, maybe if he only will speak to you, you should ask him to explain since he quickly glossed it over.........

If debt means nothing, then why pay any taxes at all? We will just print money, and no American citizen has to pay anything. Why insist on raising taxes on the rich? We don't need to, just print more, right?

Absolutely! We should just abolish all taxation... the more government spends the more we make... so that would be great for the economy... none of us having to pay 35-40% of our paycheck in taxes anymore... think of all that extra money pouring into the economy!

Correct, and it would work perfectly if his main point is accurate------> 1. We have total control of our money, and 2. Debt doesn't matter.

What he is admiting by extrapolation, is that higher rates on SOME people are no more than punishment, because we actually do not need any money as the government can just create it.

And so now it is HIS turn to explain that if his theory is accurate, while all the nice lefty politicians have a tax on the middle class at all, and why he wants to RAISE taxes on anyone, for any reason.

We are waiting their Mr Lefty for your pearls of wisdom-) And be careful what you say, lolol. You either blow your own OP out of the water, or make the Democrats look like Attilla The Hun. In either case, it should be entertaining to watch you try and spin-)

My main point is accurate. We have control of our money. We are not like Greece.
I am against raising taxes, unless people begin to move towards another currency. Taxes help drive demand for the currency of our nation.
Taxes can also reduce aggregate demand.

So then, by your short summation, are we to assume that since................taxes drive the currency..........the more debt that is accumulated, the more tax revenue is needed to drive the currency at the same rate that would be enjoyed, if the debt was less? REREAD what I asked before you answer please-)

Taxes are the main reason people want the US currency, yes.
Why are you assuming we need to collect more revenue when their is more debt?

 

[Dovahkiin]

Good faith? A balanced budget amendment is absurd. It's impossible, and absurd, to think that the fed govt. can save in currency in any relevant way. You need to learn that state/local governments are different in relation to the debt, an important point when discussing something as absurd as a "balanced budget" amendment. A "balanced budget" amendment will require a balanced budget even during recessions. I should not have to point out why this is childish. Calling a poster a "fucking idiot leftist hack" while refusing to contribute anything intelligent is telling. Hand out for freebies? Dude, quit the partisan shit. Let's assume for a second we remove all things you view as "leftist entitlements." The damage to the economy would be enormous.

I've already contributed enormously in one the first responses to the OP. I addressed your stupid 5 points one by one. You decided to start talking down to me and you've still not stopped doing it. So stick it where the sun don't shine, buddy. You are not going to sit here and high-brow me with your crackpot Keynesian theory that has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

A balanced budget is certainly NOT stupid. MILLIONS of American families balance their budgets every single month in America and enjoy economic prosperity and freedom because of it. Those who run up debts they cannot pay, face penalties and hardships too numerous to list here. They are not free, they are shackled to their debt snowball and often have to forfeit everything they have in the end. There is no difference in the principles whether it's a family, a city, a state or a federal government. You keep SAYING it is different but you've not shown anything to support that opinion and frankly, the opinion just doesn't even make rational sense.

The OP title purports to tell us why balancing the budget is lunacy... you had your chance but you merely listed 5 things that are simply excuses for not balancing the budget. That doesn't tell me why it's absurd or stupid to balance the budget, it just tells me you're real good at making up excuses. We can always make up excuses not to do something that is hard to do. That isn't a reason nor is it a justification not to do it. We CAN have a balanced budget and with a Constitutional amendment we'll HAVE to have one. There won't be any more excuses.

Now..... Every proposal that I have heard on a serious BBA, takes into consideration the various assorted things that could potentially happen... wars, catastrophes, disasters, etc. Congress will retain the ability to run a deficit in certain cases if they achieve the necessary super majority to do so. But... this will NOT be a recurring thing and it WILL be tied to the GDP. There will be limits on overspending.

As for the economy, it will skyrocket under this proposal because people will have more of their own money to spend instead of paying it out the ass in new taxation. The billions and trillions we would be paying to service the debt will be going back into the economy. The out-of-control public spending on everything under the sun would return to the private sector where free market solutions would fill the void and begin to generate new jobs and more economic prosperity. In the public sector, we would see more intense focus on making every dollar count, so we would eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse...we'd have no other choice.

Finally done with my things and ready to flesh out a response.
(i will try to explain many common misunderstands in my response while responding to your post..)
You haven't "contributed" enormously, you've simply continue to show your misunderstanding.
Many people, I'm sure yourself included, still believe the US is somehow on the gold standard and base their economic beliefs on this. News flash: The bretton woods system doesn't exist anymore. Government financing and debt is NOT similiar to household financing and debt, which is what you and many others seem to believe. One of the most widespread beliefs held by politicians and many econ students who have yet to actually delve deeper into the modern economy, is that the government needs to tax/borrow to actually spend. This is false. Modern money is, quite simply, simply a spreadsheet. When the government spends or lends, it does so by, literally, adding #'s to private bank accts. When it taxes, those accts are marked down. When the govt ends up borrowing, it's simply shifting funds from a reserve account to securities accounts. Once you understand the above, you should be able to see my perspective, and the perspective of others who refuse to follow absurd beliefs stemming from the gold era. I need to make this clear though: The money spent by the govt, literally, doesn't come from ANYWHERE, and it doesn't cost anything to produce. The govt, literally, cannot run out of money. You do know how money is created in our economy, right? Government spending or bank loans, creating deposits. You know why money has value, right? I'm trying to explain all of this to you so you shake your misunderstanding of the modern economy which has a fiat currency. Money has value because of taxes, after all, we need money to pay taxes, which in turn creates demand for money. One of the most absurd beliefs found today is that the government has to tax to spend, that's not true at all, because before the government spends, there is no money to tax. The government can literally never default on the debt, since we borrow our own currency. This should squash the fear mongering spread by both sides. But the fear mongering never goes away. The debt is a political tool. You do realize paying the debt is literally a matter of adding interest to the accounts of the entities holding bonds? It is true that a government borrowing a currency it doesn't control can default, but we're not like those countries. WE CONTROL OUR CURRENCY. I want to ask how exactly the public debt is a burden on the future? I will not respond to you after this post until you answer that question, although I'm not done yet.
(I should mention a higher public debt does nothing to production, y'know, what really matters. If anything, it increases future productivity)
Let's move onto deficits.
Deficits, quite literally, increase private financial savings. This is empirical, and cannot be refuted. It's a simple matter of accounting.
I follow modern monetary theory, not typical keynesian theory. Get that right first.
Yes, households that run up debts do actually have to find ways to make up what's needed to pay it off, this usually involves shuffling money around or cutting back. The US govt doesn't have to do that, I've made that clear already.
There is a huge difference in household debt and the public debt. It's ignorance and makes you look like a moron to say otherwise.
I've already explained this.
I've already supported my opinion, notice how you never respond with any refutations of my posts apart from ideological rambling? "DEBT IS ALWAYS BAD, OUR KIDS ARE ENSLAVED!" Shut the hell up.
The 5 things listed, among others, help demonstrate why always requiring a balanced budget is lunacy. Imagine the country falls into a recession, do you believe the govt should continue to balance the budget? When we have an 8% UE rate, should the government focus on balancing the budget?

LOL. You talk about people saving money.. Do you know what a fucking surplus does to the economy? A surplus literally causes the private sector to go under, this has been observed with the clinton surpluses. A deficit benefits the private sector, and us, because it means the government is collecting less of our tax dollars. Balancing a budget will inevitably lead to tax increases, you fool.
The "billions and trillions" we pay to service the debt isn't coming from our pockets.
We need a balance of public sector and private sector spending. A surplus, literally, harms the private sector. We had a boom under reagan when he ran deficits and boomed the debt, y'know, more money going into the private sector.

You need to learn how to write with paragraphs. I started reading this convoluted nonsense and found my eyes glazing over about a third of third of the way through... it's nothing but a shell game you're playing with economic terms.

As for a surplus, we've never had one, at lest on in OUR time. The mythical Clinton surplus was non-existent. It was predicated on a 10-year projection based on dot-com performance and the dot-com bubble burst so the realization of that projection never happened. Clinton balancing the budget was also a gimmick due to the fact they started counting the Social Security trust fund as part of the general budget.

Finally... the billion and trillions we're paying to service the debt IS coming from our pockets because there is no Magic Money Fairy. The government doesn't produce or create anything. Every dime comes from us or it has to be borrowed or printed.

I'm going to post Dr. Williams again, discussing Keynesian policy, I encourage you to pay attention this time and not ignore it like you did before.

Dr williams has no idea what he's talking about. What game am I playing? Please, tell me what I got wrong.
(Notice how williams never argues against the success of keynesian policy..)
The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy
The clinton surpluses did indeed happen, at the expense of the private sector which went negative.

 

[Dovahkiin]

"The government doesn't produce or create anything."
And this is why we need to educate our children better.

 

[Boss]

It does indeed increase economic growth when you run a deficit.

Look... You can have a job earning a paycheck and live off your credit cards. But regardless of what you do with the money from your paycheck, the interest on your credit card debt will finally catch up with you and you'll lose your credit privilege.

Obviously we can have a debt and a deficit and not fall off the face of the earth... we've been doing it for many years. However, our debt has continued to grow and now has reached critical mass. Our debt interest is killing us. It's like a great big ball and chain around our leg and it's getting bigger every year. You now have two democrats running for president who propose adding $20 trillion MORE to our $20 trillion debt... and they don't blink an eye about it. It's absolute insanity.

 

[Boss]

Good faith? A balanced budget amendment is absurd. It's impossible, and absurd, to think that the fed govt. can save in currency in any relevant way. You need to learn that state/local governments are different in relation to the debt, an important point when discussing something as absurd as a "balanced budget" amendment. A "balanced budget" amendment will require a balanced budget even during recessions. I should not have to point out why this is childish. Calling a poster a "fucking idiot leftist hack" while refusing to contribute anything intelligent is telling. Hand out for freebies? Dude, quit the partisan shit. Let's assume for a second we remove all things you view as "leftist entitlements." The damage to the economy would be enormous.

I've already contributed enormously in one the first responses to the OP. I addressed your stupid 5 points one by one. You decided to start talking down to me and you've still not stopped doing it. So stick it where the sun don't shine, buddy. You are not going to sit here and high-brow me with your crackpot Keynesian theory that has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

A balanced budget is certainly NOT stupid. MILLIONS of American families balance their budgets every single month in America and enjoy economic prosperity and freedom because of it. Those who run up debts they cannot pay, face penalties and hardships too numerous to list here. They are not free, they are shackled to their debt snowball and often have to forfeit everything they have in the end. There is no difference in the principles whether it's a family, a city, a state or a federal government. You keep SAYING it is different but you've not shown anything to support that opinion and frankly, the opinion just doesn't even make rational sense.

The OP title purports to tell us why balancing the budget is lunacy... you had your chance but you merely listed 5 things that are simply excuses for not balancing the budget. That doesn't tell me why it's absurd or stupid to balance the budget, it just tells me you're real good at making up excuses. We can always make up excuses not to do something that is hard to do. That isn't a reason nor is it a justification not to do it. We CAN have a balanced budget and with a Constitutional amendment we'll HAVE to have one. There won't be any more excuses.

Now..... Every proposal that I have heard on a serious BBA, takes into consideration the various assorted things that could potentially happen... wars, catastrophes, disasters, etc. Congress will retain the ability to run a deficit in certain cases if they achieve the necessary super majority to do so. But... this will NOT be a recurring thing and it WILL be tied to the GDP. There will be limits on overspending.

As for the economy, it will skyrocket under this proposal because people will have more of their own money to spend instead of paying it out the ass in new taxation. The billions and trillions we would be paying to service the debt will be going back into the economy. The out-of-control public spending on everything under the sun would return to the private sector where free market solutions would fill the void and begin to generate new jobs and more economic prosperity. In the public sector, we would see more intense focus on making every dollar count, so we would eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse...we'd have no other choice.

Finally done with my things and ready to flesh out a response.
(i will try to explain many common misunderstands in my response while responding to your post..)
You haven't "contributed" enormously, you've simply continue to show your misunderstanding.
Many people, I'm sure yourself included, still believe the US is somehow on the gold standard and base their economic beliefs on this. News flash: The bretton woods system doesn't exist anymore. Government financing and debt is NOT similiar to household financing and debt, which is what you and many others seem to believe. One of the most widespread beliefs held by politicians and many econ students who have yet to actually delve deeper into the modern economy, is that the government needs to tax/borrow to actually spend. This is false. Modern money is, quite simply, simply a spreadsheet. When the government spends or lends, it does so by, literally, adding #'s to private bank accts. When it taxes, those accts are marked down. When the govt ends up borrowing, it's simply shifting funds from a reserve account to securities accounts. Once you understand the above, you should be able to see my perspective, and the perspective of others who refuse to follow absurd beliefs stemming from the gold era. I need to make this clear though: The money spent by the govt, literally, doesn't come from ANYWHERE, and it doesn't cost anything to produce. The govt, literally, cannot run out of money. You do know how money is created in our economy, right? Government spending or bank loans, creating deposits. You know why money has value, right? I'm trying to explain all of this to you so you shake your misunderstanding of the modern economy which has a fiat currency. Money has value because of taxes, after all, we need money to pay taxes, which in turn creates demand for money. One of the most absurd beliefs found today is that the government has to tax to spend, that's not true at all, because before the government spends, there is no money to tax. The government can literally never default on the debt, since we borrow our own currency. This should squash the fear mongering spread by both sides. But the fear mongering never goes away. The debt is a political tool. You do realize paying the debt is literally a matter of adding interest to the accounts of the entities holding bonds? It is true that a government borrowing a currency it doesn't control can default, but we're not like those countries. WE CONTROL OUR CURRENCY. I want to ask how exactly the public debt is a burden on the future? I will not respond to you after this post until you answer that question, although I'm not done yet.
(I should mention a higher public debt does nothing to production, y'know, what really matters. If anything, it increases future productivity)
Let's move onto deficits.
Deficits, quite literally, increase private financial savings. This is empirical, and cannot be refuted. It's a simple matter of accounting.
I follow modern monetary theory, not typical keynesian theory. Get that right first.
Yes, households that run up debts do actually have to find ways to make up what's needed to pay it off, this usually involves shuffling money around or cutting back. The US govt doesn't have to do that, I've made that clear already.
There is a huge difference in household debt and the public debt. It's ignorance and makes you look like a moron to say otherwise.
I've already explained this.
I've already supported my opinion, notice how you never respond with any refutations of my posts apart from ideological rambling? "DEBT IS ALWAYS BAD, OUR KIDS ARE ENSLAVED!" Shut the hell up.
The 5 things listed, among others, help demonstrate why always requiring a balanced budget is lunacy. Imagine the country falls into a recession, do you believe the govt should continue to balance the budget? When we have an 8% UE rate, should the government focus on balancing the budget?

LOL. You talk about people saving money.. Do you know what a fucking surplus does to the economy? A surplus literally causes the private sector to go under, this has been observed with the clinton surpluses. A deficit benefits the private sector, and us, because it means the government is collecting less of our tax dollars. Balancing a budget will inevitably lead to tax increases, you fool.
The "billions and trillions" we pay to service the debt isn't coming from our pockets.
We need a balance of public sector and private sector spending. A surplus, literally, harms the private sector. We had a boom under reagan when he ran deficits and boomed the debt, y'know, more money going into the private sector.

You need to learn how to write with paragraphs. I started reading this convoluted nonsense and found my eyes glazing over about a third of third of the way through... it's nothing but a shell game you're playing with economic terms.

As for a surplus, we've never had one, at lest on in OUR time. The mythical Clinton surplus was non-existent. It was predicated on a 10-year projection based on dot-com performance and the dot-com bubble burst so the realization of that projection never happened. Clinton balancing the budget was also a gimmick due to the fact they started counting the Social Security trust fund as part of the general budget.

Finally... the billion and trillions we're paying to service the debt IS coming from our pockets because there is no Magic Money Fairy. The government doesn't produce or create anything. Every dime comes from us or it has to be borrowed or printed.

I'm going to post Dr. Williams again, discussing Keynesian policy, I encourage you to pay attention this time and not ignore it like you did before.

Dr williams has no idea what he's talking about. What game am I playing? Please, tell me what I got wrong.
(Notice how williams never argues against the success of keynesian policy..)
The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy
The clinton surpluses did indeed happen, at the expense of the private sector which went negative.

No... I think the head of economics at one of the most prestigious universities in the country does know what he is talking about. It is YOU who doesn't know what he is talking about but thinks he can high brow his way around the argument.

Williams can't argue against he success of Keynesian policy because there isn't anything to argue against except your propaganda and convoluted shell game of economic terminology. You've simply created a "success story" that doesn't exist and you believe it's real. But the Magic Money Fairy doesn't exist and you've still not explained where the money comes from.

 

[imawhosure]

Know what Boss, I am still waiting for this lefty to address another post added in earlier, maybe if he only will speak to you, you should ask him to explain since he quickly glossed it over.........

If debt means nothing, then why pay any taxes at all? We will just print money, and no American citizen has to pay anything. Why insist on raising taxes on the rich? We don't need to, just print more, right?

Absolutely! We should just abolish all taxation... the more government spends the more we make... so that would be great for the economy... none of us having to pay 35-40% of our paycheck in taxes anymore... think of all that extra money pouring into the economy!

Correct, and it would work perfectly if his main point is accurate------> 1. We have total control of our money, and 2. Debt doesn't matter.

What he is admiting by extrapolation, is that higher rates on SOME people are no more than punishment, because we actually do not need any money as the government can just create it.

And so now it is HIS turn to explain that if his theory is accurate, while all the nice lefty politicians have a tax on the middle class at all, and why he wants to RAISE taxes on anyone, for any reason.

We are waiting their Mr Lefty for your pearls of wisdom-) And be careful what you say, lolol. You either blow your own OP out of the water, or make the Democrats look like Attilla The Hun. In either case, it should be entertaining to watch you try and spin-)

My main point is accurate. We have control of our money. We are not like Greece.
I am against raising taxes, unless people begin to move towards another currency. Taxes help drive demand for the currency of our nation.
Taxes can also reduce aggregate demand.

So then, by your short summation, are we to assume that since................taxes drive the currency..........the more debt that is accumulated, the more tax revenue is needed to drive the currency at the same rate that would be enjoyed, if the debt was less? REREAD what I asked before you answer please-)

Taxes are the main reason people want the US currency, yes.
Why are you assuming we need to collect more revenue when their is more debt?

Because if the value of a dollar is tied to taxes, minus the debt owed, then the more debt we accumulate, the more tax rates or tax revenue have to rise to keep the dollar at the same valuation.

Here is a little exercise-----> look at what a dollar was worth in 1920 in buying power, and what it is worth today. This devaluation did not happen because of the private sector, it happened because the Fed printed more dollars than the goods the private sector created.

If we follow your logic, there is no reason to save anything we make, because any interest we acrue through saving, is eaten up by the fed creating to many dollars. It is exactly why the stock market roared with all of the QE. Free dollars needed a place to make money, and just saving them would be done at a loss.

Today, to keep the currency stable, we can NOT have more money printed than goods produced. By economics 101, if we do try it, the dollar loses value, and every person who has 1 dollar saved, loses buying power with that dollar also, after the interest rate is deducted.

EXAMPLE----------> If I have a 100 dollar economy, and have 100 dollars in circulation, then I am 1 for 1. But, if I have a 100 dollar economy, have 100 dollars in circulation, then decide to print 100 dollars more, I have 200 dollars chasing 100 dollars worth of goods, meaning the price of said goods rises. Why? Because people can demand more for their goods.

And what about the guy/gal that saved 1 dollar from the last go round? Well, now he has to use that 1 dollar to buy goods that the price just went up on. Good luck with that!