If only we had listened to Jefferson and Newt

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[Greenbeard]

If only we had listened to Jefferson

I reckon our maps would look a little different. If Jefferson had listened to Jefferson, that is.

A BBA is a bad idea in any century.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

PLease dont be so silly, a BBA allows for deficits in times of emergency

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If only we had listened to Jefferson

I reckon our maps would look a little different. If Jefferson had listened to Jefferson, that is.

A BBA is a bad idea in any century.

did it occur to you to explain why a BBA is a bad idea????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

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.

 

[Greenbeard]

If only we had listened to Jefferson

I reckon our maps would look a little different. If Jefferson had listened to Jefferson, that is.

A BBA is a bad idea in any century.

did it occur to you to explain why a BBA is a bad idea????

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.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A BBA is a bad idea in any century.

did it occur to you to explain why a BBA is a bad idea????

Because deficit spending can be necessary and even prudent in any number of circumstances.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?????

So if you're arguing for a responsible BBA

did I say or imply I wanted an irresponsible amendment?

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.

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?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

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.

There are laws stating what types of weapons are allowed to be owned, and there are laws stating that speech that can harm people physically (Yelling fire in a crowded room) is illegal.

Simply having the phrase "Emergency Situations" or the like in the BBA is WAY too open to interpretation. And even if you were to list what these situations are, it's too easy for politicians to make cases which would broaden the definition. I've seen liberals arguing that forced vaccinations can be labeled under national security; because if people get sick then they don't work, less work equals less taxes, ect., ect. The BBA would be raped, abused, and twisted until it meant nothing. Instead of trying to put a band-aid over the problem (spending), fix the root of the problem (politicians).

 

[Toro]

Did Jefferson want to put giant mirrors in space to make it easier to drive at night too?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

The DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY was an American political party foudned early in the 1790's by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The dominant faction of the party later supported Andrew Jackson and evolved into the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

The other main faction of the party (led by Henry Clay) became the Whig Party, the northern Whigs became the Civil War era Republican Party.

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.

You're opinion on borrowing makes no economic sense; do a bit of research (unless you are also willfully ignorant - as well as dishonest) on Alexander Hamilton.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Umm republicans were the ones who did away with paygo, which seemed to be working pretty well.

 

[konradv]

If only we had listened to Jefferson

I reckon our maps would look a little different. If Jefferson had listened to Jefferson, that is.

A BBA is a bad idea in any century.

did it occur to you to explain why a BBA is a bad idea????

Would tht LA Purchase be considered an emergency? If so, that opens up the flodgates for a new definiton of 'emergency' and there goes the BBA.

 

[editec]

A balanced budget amendment would be a terrible mistake.

If you want government spending under control control the folks whyo get into office.

But just imainge what would have happened during WWII if the USA couldn't have spend more than the revenue it took in.

 

[code1211]

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.

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.

Just like the language authorizing war.

 

[code1211]

I reckon our maps would look a little different. If Jefferson had listened to Jefferson, that is.

A BBA is a bad idea in any century.

did it occur to you to explain why a BBA is a bad idea????

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.

We are living in an age of permanent and unsustainable deficits. What is a good solution to stop the unavoidable crash that is surely the outcome of this?

You are saying that a balanced budget amendment is not workable at all time because of situations that occur rarely.

However, we are currently burrowing outrageous sums of money just to conduct day to day business.

Are you at all amused by the Debtor in Chief cutting the Defense budget and allowing the bloated civilian government monstrosity to continue growing? A new agency in the midst of our misery? How many more people does he think I need to have governing me?

Priceless!

 

[code1211]

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.

Umm republicans were the ones who did away with paygo, which seemed to be working pretty well.

Right.

The deficits of today are good evidence of the impact of Paygo. Who knows? Maybe it would work better if the DEMOCRATS WOULD ACTUALLY APPROVE AND TRY TO FOLLOW A BUDGET.

What is PAYGO?

Budget experts generally agree that PAYGO worked extremely well from 1990 through 1997. In 1998, a budget surplus emerged by surprise and the discipline implied by PAYGO began to wane. The law officially expired at the end of fiscal 2002.
After Democrats won control of the Congress in 2006, the House of Representatives quickly re-instituted PAYGO and the Senate adopted a similar rule with the Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2008. Unlike the version passed in 1990, the new PAYGO is not a law. It is simply a procedural rule. If legislative changes were not fully paid for, the earlier law required a sequester of spending to make up the difference. The new rule does not.

 

[code1211]

A balanced budget amendment would be a terrible mistake.

If you want government spending under control control the folks whyo get into office.

But just imainge what would have happened during WWII if the USA couldn't have spend more than the revenue it took in.

Maybe an amendment that makes it an act of treason to overspend collections that can only be forgiven by a Presidential pardon given individually to each member who voted for any spending.

Treason to carry the death penalty.

Of course, Treason would also be defined as signing any spending bill that led to a deficit.

No presidential pardon available there.