If only we had listened to Jefferson and Newt

Discussion in 'Politics' started by EdwardBaiamonte, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    Republicans since Jefferson have wanted a Balanced Budget Amendment. Newt's passed the House but fell one vote short in the Senate. Does anyone know what our national debt would be today if we had been more Republican?




    Jefferson wrote his letter to long time friend John Taylor,dated
    Nov. 26, 1798, which was in fact advocating that such an amendment be added to the Constitution.

    Thomas Jefferson who, just two years after the Constitution had been in effect, argued for a Constitutional amendment: “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an article, taking from the Federal government the power of borrowing.”

    Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819

    The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
     
  2. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,407
    Thanks Received:
    2,247
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,732
    If we had been constitutionally barred from borrowing we would either have had to make another amendment overturning it or allow the confederacy to take over without a fight.
     
  3. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    I reckon our maps would look a little different. If Jefferson had listened to Jefferson, that is.

    [​IMG]

    A BBA is a bad idea in any century.
     
  4. Wacky Quacky
    Offline

    Wacky Quacky Silver Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,824
    Thanks Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +376
    I'm all for balancing the budget, but explain to me how this amendment would work. There would absolutely have to be a provision for emergency spending, and guess who gets to decide what is an emergency? The very people who are bankrupting us now. All that would change with a balanced budget amendment is that everything become an emergency.
     
  5. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    PLease dont be so silly, a BBA allows for deficits in times of emergency
     
  6. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    did it occur to you to explain why a BBA is a bad idea????
     
  7. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    That would be like saying all speech is free speech or all citizens can bear nuclear arms. The words in the Constitution still have some meaning especially if their intent is very very clear.
     
  8. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    Because deficit spending can be necessary and even prudent in any number of circumstances. The Jefferson administration's decision to incur a little extra debt to virtually double the size of the United States is regretted by (as far as I know) no one. In the modern era, we have a fair amount of automatic countercyclical spending that kicks in to smooth out economic troughs and lessen the pain of downturns--those automatic stabilizers, coupled with the inevitable plunging of tax receipts during recessions, are a primary reason we run deficits during times like these.

    Permanent deficits are obviously unsustainable and undesirable but that doesn't mean a deficit in any given year (regardless of the context and circumstances) is bad. Now maybe you allow for exceptions in "emergency" situations, such as certain economic conditions where deficit spending may be necessary. If I'm not mistaken, most iterations of the balanced budget amendment do contain provisions for emergencies. Then deficit spending under conditions like those that prevailed in early 2009 would presumably be acceptable. In fact, that's how the stimulus was passed, despite the 111th Congress adopting paygo rules. If you look at the ARRA, right at the beginning it designated its deficit spending as emergency spending:

    SEC. 5. EMERGENCY DESIGNATIONS.

    (a) In General- Each amount in this Act is designated as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to section 204(a) of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) and section 301(b)(2) of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolutions on the budget for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
    (b) Pay-as-You-Go- All applicable provisions in this Act are designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles.​


    So if you're arguing for a responsible BBA that allows for prudent and essential deficit spending in certain circumstances, okay. Though I wonder how useful such an amendment would be. If you're arguing for an inflexible blanket ban on deficit spending, no way.
     
  9. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    did it occur to you to explain why a BBA is a bad idea????

    all agree thats why there would be emergency exceptions followed by austerity until balance was acheived


    no idea what subject you are on?? Do you know?? Deficts can come from surpluses or from short term debt as long as over say any 3 year period you are in balance.


    do you have any idea what subject you are on?



    Now maybe you allow for exceptions in "emergency" situations, such as certain economic conditions where deficit spending may be necessary. If I'm not mistaken, most iterations of the balanced budget amendment do contain provisions for emergencies. Then deficit spending under conditions like those that prevailed in early 2009 would presumably be acceptable. In fact, that's how the stimulus was passed, despite the 111th Congress adopting paygo rules. If you look at the ARRA, right at the beginning it designated its deficit spending as emergency spending:

    SEC. 5. EMERGENCY DESIGNATIONS.

    (a) In General- Each amount in this Act is designated as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to section 204(a) of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) and section 301(b)(2) of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolutions on the budget for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
    (b) Pay-as-You-Go- All applicable provisions in this Act are designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles.​

    [/quote]

    subject please?????


    did I say or imply I wanted an irresponsible amendment?

    Almost anything is better than what we have, which by the way is impending bankruptcy. What is the psychological problem you have that makes you want to argue with the common sense that will combat bankruptcy?
     
  10. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    The Confederacy wasn't trying to "take over" anything. They were trying to leave. That's why our "Civil War" wasn't a civil war at all, in the technical sense.
     

Share This Page