Let's Pass A Balanced Budget Amendment Now...

[paulitician]

Nice take from Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Not always a fan of Hatch's but he really did nail this one.


Our national debt has soared past $15 trillion- forcing a historic debate about the proper size and scope of our government. This debate is an enduring one in our great Republic. It will define who we are as a nation – about our future for our children and grandchildren.

The American people are demanding dramatic action. But standing in the way is a President who refuses to back away from his failed agenda of higher taxes and higher spending. This is a President who has presided over the single largest reduction in employment in modern times. This is a President who has tried to tax almost anything that moves. This is a President who has increased the national debt by 35 percent on his watch.

There is only one response to this President and to our spending-fueled debt crisis – that is a constitutional balanced budget amendment that would put a straightjacket on our nation’s addiction to spending money we simply do not have.

Read More:
http://biggovernment.com/ohatch/2011/12/12/lets-pass-a-balanced-budget-amendment-now/#more-389860

 

[Truthmatters]

your full of myths

 

[occupied]

A balanced budget amendment is not possible and would be absolute self destructive folly.

 

[DiamondDave]

your full of myths

And YOU'RE full of lies and empty on intelligence

 

[Truthmatters]

how well can a family get ahead if they never go into debt for anything?

 

[occupied]

There are many unintended consequences to this, not the least of which is to tie our hands in an emergency situation. Not only would we have to balance the budget, we would have to keep huge surpluses on hand in case of hurricanes, earthquakes and other unforeseen disasters.

 

[martybegan]

There are many unintended consequences to this, not the least of which is to tie our hands in an emergency situation. Not only would we have to balance the budget, we would have to keep huge surpluses on hand in case of hurricanes, earthquakes and other unforeseen disasters.

The amendment would allow for exceptions for emergencies. The problem is that deficit spending is the NORM now, and accepted as just part of running the government.

While keyesian economics has its merits, the problem is that we currently only follow HALF of the strategy laid out. True keyesian economics calls for deficit spending when the economy sucks, followed by using surpluses during boom times to pay back the debt. We currently only do the deficit spending, with no forseeable plan to ever pay down the debt, or even reduce the deficit spending.

 

[Steelplate]

great... let's do it... but have adequate measures for emergencies AND not kill Social programs. If we do that... sure.. .let's balance the budget.

 

[Annie]

Can't balance a budget that doesn't exist. It's been more than 3 years now since there was a budget.

 

[DiamondDave]

great... let's do it... but have adequate measures for emergencies AND not kill Social programs. If we do that... sure.. .let's balance the budget.

Measures to cut other programs when emergencies pop up.... I would love to see that....

But eliminate social programs... that is not a constitutional charge of government...

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Who guhna pay foe dat woman's 15 kids if we balance the budget?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

There are many unintended consequences to this, not the least of which is to tie our hands in an emergency situation. Not only would we have to balance the budget, we would have to keep huge surpluses on hand in case of hurricanes, earthquakes and other unforeseen disasters.

The amendment would allow for exceptions for emergencies. The problem is that deficit spending is the NORM now, and accepted as just part of running the government.

While keyesian economics has its merits, the problem is that we currently only follow HALF of the strategy laid out. True keyesian economics calls for deficit spending when the economy sucks, followed by using surpluses during boom times to pay back the debt. We currently only do the deficit spending, with no forseeable plan to ever pay down the debt, or even reduce the deficit spending.

That's why it would never work. Guess who gets to decide what's an emergency?

 

[paulitician]

Who guhna pay foe dat woman's 15 kids if we balance the budget?

 

[kiwiman127]

Though I am in favor of a balanced budget, now is not the time to implement it.
Why? As economists from all sides fear it would hurt any economic growth that we are experiencing now. Some economists think that implementing a balanced budget now it would actually put the US back into a recession.
In the UK, conservatives cut spending and since then the UK was forced to lower the economic growth projections. Also the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) projects Britain will enter a recession next year.
In other words, if we cut spending (which would be part of the balanced budget), it cuts overall spending that contributes to the GNP. When the GNP goes down, the economy slows down to the point of being dangerous to the overall economy as witnessed in the UK.
A balanced budget would be fine, but only after the economy is righted.

 

[Steelplate]

great... let's do it... but have adequate measures for emergencies AND not kill Social programs. If we do that... sure.. .let's balance the budget.

Measures to cut other programs when emergencies pop up.... I would love to see that....

But eliminate social programs... that is not a constitutional charge of government...

I don't give a shit... the PEOPLE want them... Just because you don't doesn't mean squat. If you want to debate that... then the general welfare line in the Constitution covers it... or at least brings up an argument for them.

 

[Steelplate]

Who guhna pay foe dat woman's 15 kids if we balance the budget?

Yeah... let's bring extremism into the mix. Don't forget about the guy who wants to live like a baby.

No one said there isn't people taking advantage... let's eliminate that instead of the programs... Mmmkay?

 

[paulitician]

What a country we've become huh? They've actually convinced many that Balanced Budgets are now supposedly a bad thing. Yea,we're screwed.

 

[occupied]

If people want a balanced budget amendment so bad one of two things will have to happen: We will either have to raise revenue to sufficiently high levels to pay off the debt in a reasonable amount of time or default on it.

 

[DiamondDave]

great... let's do it... but have adequate measures for emergencies AND not kill Social programs. If we do that... sure.. .let's balance the budget.

Measures to cut other programs when emergencies pop up.... I would love to see that....

But eliminate social programs... that is not a constitutional charge of government...

I don't give a shit... the PEOPLE want them... Just because you don't doesn't mean squat. If you want to debate that... then the general welfare line in the Constitution covers it... or at least brings up an argument for them.

This is not a people "want" government... and it is exactly why we have a constitution to protect against tyranny of the masses

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES (AKA the Union) does not cover it and has been continually bastardized by big government types on both sides of the political spectrum for too long

You can want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first

 

[Steelplate]

Measures to cut other programs when emergencies pop up.... I would love to see that....

But eliminate social programs... that is not a constitutional charge of government...

I don't give a shit... the PEOPLE want them... Just because you don't doesn't mean squat. If you want to debate that... then the general welfare line in the Constitution covers it... or at least brings up an argument for them.

This is not a people "want" government... and it is exactly why we have a constitution to protect against tyranny of the masses

The general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES (AKA the Union) does not cover it and has been continually bastardized by big government types on both sides of the political spectrum for too long

You can want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first

Really? I suppose that if it's been "bastardized" and "not covered" then the SCOTUS would have put a stop to it.